do athiests and agnostics go to heaven

PDN · 28-02-2008 12:27PM

bogwalrus wrote: »

If god doesnt allow non believers who are truly generous and altruistic into heaven for the fact that they dont believe in him then he can sod off.

Tell me this. What other purpose is there on this planet if not to live in harmony with your fellow man and other species so that all live happily for the simple purpose of the progression of life? Your ideas of worshiping god to be saved are most definitely selfish (whether you know it or not). Only an atheist can be truly altruistic as he/she does not have to think of salvation as it is not a factor in their thinking processes.

Examples:
An atheist donates money into a charity box - "i hope this money goes to helping some of the less unfortunate people in the world"

A christian donates money into a charity box - "i hope this money goes to helping some of the less unfortunate people in the world.........i hope god saw me do that"

If I put money in a charity box I don't think it has any effect on my salvation whatsoever.

Pompey Magnus · 28-02-2008 01:21PM

PDN wrote: »

If I put money in a charity box I don't think it has any effect on my salvation whatsoever.

Really? You don't think that God, who sees all, does not take into account your charity when judging your life? I find that very hard to believe but a highly admirable quality if true.

kelly1 · 28-02-2008 01:24PM

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

Really? You don't think that God, who sees all, does not take into account your charity when judging your life? I find that very hard to believe but a highly admirable quality if true.

There's a difference between salvation and reward.

PDN · 28-02-2008 01:26PM

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

Really? You don't think that God, who sees all, does not take into account your charity when judging your life? I find that very hard to believe but a highly admirable quality if true.

Really. My salvation rests on the fact that Jesus died on the Cross and that I have received by faith God's forgiveness and grace as a free gift. I could put every cent I earn for the next 50 years into collection boxes, but that would not make me even the slightest bit deserving of heaven. This incidentally, is why I have no problem with the idea of Hitler or someone similar repenting and going to heaven - I don't think I am any more deserving of heaven than Hitler.

eoin5 · 28-02-2008 01:59PM

kelly1 wrote: »

There's a difference between salvation and reward.

There is a difference I'm sure but all the sermons I've heard on the matter put them quite close together. Stuff like :

bible wrote:

...But love your enemies, do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return. Your reward will be great, and you will be children of the Most High; for he is kind to the ungrateful and the wicked. Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful.

BrianCalgary · 28-02-2008 04:05PM

Bduffman wrote: »

With respect but I have to agree with some other posters when they say that is arrogance of the highest order. By your last statement you imply that you can only live a good life if you 'accept & trust in christ'. What absolute nonsense & as an atheist I take offence to it. As far as I'm concerned I live a 'good life' - probably better than most 'christians' I know - and I'm pretty sure its not as a result of any 'christ'. And if your god does not select 'only those that live a good life' but may actually select those believers who may not even live as good a life as me then he must be a very petty individual.

And from post #254:

Quote:
Originally Posted by robindch
I utterly reject the idea that I am incapable of living a "good" life because I don't believe the same thing as you.

Idealogical arrogance does not become you, Brian

I dont believe I said that nor have I ever.

We are speaking of the Christian life here Robin, not life in general.

I know many non-Christians who give out for their fellow man and do some pretty good philanthropic work.

It still does not deny that being a Christian should lead to living a good unselfish life.

Some of the secular philanthropists do so in order to get tax breaks and thereby increase their bottom line. Soem do because they feel a social responsibilty and it goves them a good feeling. We can debase any good work to a selfish motive.

BrianCalgary · 28-02-2008 04:15PM

robindch wrote: »

That's not how tax brackets work, at least in any tax system that I'm familiar with. Check with an accountant as it's too involved for here.?

It is how tax brackets work. Charitable donations get deducted from your taxable income. Dropping you into a lower tax bracket thereby reducing the percentage of taxable income paid and there you have it: Less tak paid.

robindch wrote: »

It might be different in Canada, but here in Ireland and other than telly-station organized charity gigs, I don't remember anybody getting any coverage on the news for making a donation to charity. ?

Oprah Corp. making a donation to an African orphanage for children of AIDs victims is one that comes to mind right off.

When going to the theatre you see a list of corporations who have contributed to teh theatres charitable foundation. You can also see it in sporting facilities. Then there are the humanitarian organisations that list their sponsorship partners.

robindch wrote: »

And in any case, so what? That's not the point that I'm asking you to clarify.As above, I don't believe that myself and I vaguely recall pulling people up on that, or something similar recently, quite possibly in relation to posts by Zillah, kelly1 and Soul Winner. Do check this out.?

It has been raised a few times that Christians actions are falsly motivated as they do it for the benefit of eternal life, and not for just doing good. Wheras the secularist has no benefit and just do it from teh goodness of their own heart to benefit mankind.

Yet you don't demand proof of that type of statemnt yet you are demanding proof from me.

I have given you examples where it exists. Yet for some reason it's not good enough.

.

robindch wrote: »

And as you raise the topic, I must say that christian posters, even those who are well-qualified to be good historians, have remained curiously silent when you've said -- as you have -- that something is assumed to be true if nobody else contradicts it (in relation to the NT). The sides of this debate are not being equally honest.Yes, indeed there are. ?

I haven't a clue what you are on about here?.

robindch wrote: »

And I'm asking you to back up what you said with examples about "secularists" giving to charity in order to gain tax benefits. Can you do this?

I did above. But as i sit here I know that you wont accept it.

Bduffman · 29-02-2008 09:16AM

BrianCalgary wrote: »

It still does not deny that being a Christian should lead to living a good unselfish life.

Some of the secular philanthropists do so in order to get tax breaks and thereby increase their bottom line. Soem do because they feel a social responsibilty and it goves them a good feeling. We can debase any good work to a selfish motive.

From the comments above, you imply that being a christian should lead to a good life & non-religious do it for selfish reasons? Well I'm sorry but not all christians live a good life & not all us atheists live a good life for selfish reasons. The ultimate selfish reason would be to gain 'salvation' & to say that christians don't think about that when they do some good is simply unbelievable. You seem to have a problem understanding that some people do good because its the right thing to do - not for salvation - not for financial gain - not for a 'feelgood feeling'. But I don't expect most christians to understand that.

PDN · 29-02-2008 11:25AM

Bduffman wrote: »

From the comments above, you imply that being a christian should lead to a good life & non-religious do it for selfish reasons?

No, I think rather that Brian points out that some secular philanthropists give for selfish reasons. This would appear to be a fair response to some of the rather silly posts that are arguing 'Christians give to charity in order to get a reward (heaven) but atheists' giving is the only giving which is truly altruistic'.

Well I'm sorry but not all christians live a good life & not all us atheists live a good life for selfish reasons.

I would entirely agree, so perhaps we are making progress.

The ultimate selfish reason would be to gain 'salvation' & to say that christians don't think about that when they do some good is simply unbelievable.

Ah, maybe we aren't making progress after all. You still don't get it, do you? Salvation, for Christians, is not earned by good works. Salvation is an undeserved gift from God based on the Work of Christ and not on any works that we may or may not do. Therefore it is entirely believable that we don't think about earning salvation when we do some good.

Zombrex · 29-02-2008 12:23PM

BrianCalgary wrote: »

So it works:

Accept Christ - as Lord and saviour
Trust Christ - with your life
Follow Christ - by the leading of the Holy Spirit

But point 3 isn't connected to the other 2 points. I could follow the teachings of Christ without believing he was the son of God, nor that I had accepted salvation.

Wouldn't that make me just as good as any Christian, and therefore leading a good life is not a result of either accepting or trusting Jesus (since you can do that an not lead a good life), it is just a result of leading a "good life" (as you guys define it).

Bduffman · 29-02-2008 01:01PM

PDN wrote: »

No, I think rather that Brian points out that some secular philanthropists give for selfish reasons. .

As do christians

PDN wrote: »

Ah, maybe we aren't making progress after all. You still don't get it, do you? Salvation, for Christians, is not earned by good works. Salvation is an undeserved gift from God based on the Work of Christ and not on any works that we may or may not do. Therefore it is entirely believable that we don't think about earning salvation when we do some good.

Yeah right. So god does not take into account good works by an individual? Must p*ss off people who work their *rses off for the good of humanity just to watch the lazy / selfish ones get salvation. Very logical.
And by the way - why do you think that when you think I agree with you - that you somehow assume its 'progress'. Arrogance again.

JimiTime · 29-02-2008 01:25PM

Bduffman wrote: »

Yeah right. So god does not take into account good works by an individual? Must p*ss off people who work their *rses off for the good of humanity just to watch the lazy / selfish ones get salvation. Very logical.

And by the way - why do you think that when you think I agree with you - that you somehow assume its 'progress'. Arrogance again.

How Ironic.

PDN · 29-02-2008 03:23PM

Bduffman wrote: »

As do christians

If you insert the word 'some' in there, then we are in agreement once more. To insist that all atheists, or that all Christians, only do good works for selfish reasons is just plain silly. You get selfishness, and unselfish generosity, among both Christians and unbelievers.

Yeah right. So god does not take into account good works by an individual? Must p*ss off people who work their *rses off for the good of humanity just to watch the lazy / selfish ones get salvation. Very logical.

I think it is extremely logical. No doubt some people do get pissed off that others are shown such generous mercy. Jesus was well aware of that - hence the reaction of the older brother in the parable of the Prodigal Son:

Meanwhile, the older son was in the field. When he came near the house, he heard music and dancing. So he called one of the servants and asked him what was going on. 'Your brother has come,' he replied, 'and your father has killed the fattened calf because he has him back safe and sound.'

"The older brother became angry and refused to go in. So his father went out and pleaded with him. But he answered his father, 'Look! All these years I've been slaving for you and never disobeyed your orders. Yet you never gave me even a young goat so I could celebrate with my friends. But when this son of yours who has squandered your property with prostitutes comes home, you kill the fattened calf for him!'

'My son,' the father said, 'you are always with me, and everything I have is yours. But we had to celebrate and be glad, because this brother of yours was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found.' (Luke 15:25-32)

The concept of undeserved grace does tend to irritate the self-righteous. That's one of the reasons why the Pharisees hated Jesus so much. He preached God's love and acceptance to lifelong sinners which enraged the Pharisees who had worked their arses off all their lives to gain God's favour.

And by the way - why do you think that when you think I agree with you - that you somehow assume its 'progress'. Arrogance again.

I think it's progress when you appear to be actually listening to us as we explain what Christians believe. When you persist in ignoring what we say and banging on with misrepresentations of Christianity (such as the nonsensical idea that we believe salvation is a reward for our good works) then that would indeed demonstrate a lack of progress. My definition of 'progress' would be that a discussion helps us to understand what one another believes. Whether you agree with it or not is not my problem.

PDN · 29-02-2008 03:27PM

Wicknight wrote: »

But point 3 isn't connected to the other 2 points. I could follow the teachings of Christ without believing he was the son of God, nor that I had accepted salvation.

Well actually you couldn't. A significant proportion of Jesus' teaching was about the necessity of believing in Him - so by definition you would, by not believing He was the Son of God or accepting salvation, fail to follow His teachings.

You can, of course, choose to pick out some of Christ's teachings that you feel are exclusively moral, rather than faith based, and try to follow them. However, such cherrypicking could not, by any sensible definition, be seen as "following the teachings of Christ".

Tomk1 · 12-03-2008 08:13PM

Jakkass wrote: »

This is why millions are being helped by missionaries around the world.

Yeah Believe in my god and we will feed you!!!

PDN · 12-03-2008 10:11PM

Tomk1 wrote: »

Yeah Believe in my god and we will feed you!!!

I travel all over the world inspecting various missionary projects. I have yet to see a single one where humanitarian help was conditional on the recipient believing in God.

I'm not saying such incidents have not happened at any point in history (missionaries, like everyone else are only human and sometimes get it wrong) but to present it as the norm is an outright lie.

BrianCalgary · 13-03-2008 02:20PM

Tomk1 wrote: »

Yeah Believe in my god and we will feed you!!!

Now this is uncalled for, it seems to me that you are implying that only those that convert get fed?

If that is the case can you give us some proof of this happening?

I have been on food distribution endeavours in a third world country and the persons faith is never asked, but thefood is given. The Same can be said for friends of mine that have been on teh same type of trip.

robindch · 13-03-2008 04:04PM

BrianCalgary wrote: »

If that is the case can you give us some proof of this happening?

It happened here in Ireland during the famine, when protestant organizations provided food, but only if you swore allegiance to 'protestantism' first. The starving people who did this were derisively called 'soupers' and you can find out about them easily on the internet.

There are many, many more examples. That's just one.

wolfsbane · 13-03-2008 04:48PM

robindch wrote: »

It happened here in Ireland during the famine, when protestant organizations provided food, but only if you swore allegiance to 'protestantism' first. The starving people who did this were derisively called 'soupers' and you can find out about them easily on the internet.

There are many, many more examples. That's just one.

As PDN pointed out, abuses are not the norm. Even in the past, in the Irish Famine for example, it seems not to have been the norm:

The author acknowledges that famine relief by most Protestants, both individually and collectively, was given in the spirit of humanity and benevolence. - from an article dedicated solely to addressing the activities and beliefs of those Protestant organisations which sought to exploit the deaths and suffering of millions in Ireland in order to destroy the religious beliefs and practices of the indigenous Irish population (Catholicism) and to promote their own version of faith (Protestantism).
http://homepage.eircom.net/~archaeology/two/famine.htm

I doubt any evangelical organisation today would tolerate such behaviour for a moment. The problem may have arisen with non-evangelical organisations, who do not believe in the 'born-again' experience as necessary to becoming a Christian. A formal declaration of change of religion would surfice them.

robindch · 13-03-2008 06:39PM

wolfsbane wrote: »

As PDN pointed out, abuses are not the norm.

Perhaps they're not the norm in the organizations that PDN oversees -- and good on him for making it this way too -- but my own fairly limited experience of how religious organizations operate suggests otherwise.

However, Brian did ask for an example and I gave him one.

jawlie · 14-03-2008 02:31PM

Tomk1 wrote: »

Yeah Believe in my god and we will feed you!!!

What a lucky time we live in to only have that. There was a time the churches murdered heretics, sometimes in the most disgusting and revolting ways, and when you tot up all the people who have been killed and murdered in the name of christ, by the churches and others acrting on behalf of the churches, you realise the whole god thing is really very dubious.

wolfsbane · 15-03-2008 08:39PM

jawlie wrote: »

What a lucky time we live in to only have that. There was a time the churches murdered heretics, sometimes in the most disgusting and revolting ways, and when you tot up all the people who have been killed and murdered in the name of christ, by the churches and others acrting on behalf of the churches, you realise the whole god thing is really very dubious.

That would only be valid if all the churches were true churches, following after the Lord. It is evident from both their theology and practice that most of them are not.

God should be assessed by what He says, by the behaviour He mandates; and by the change for the better He brings into the lives of those who truly seek to serve Him.

Pompey Magnus · 15-03-2008 09:24PM

wolfsbane wrote: »

That would only be valid if all the churches were true churches, following after the Lord. It is evident from both their theology and practice that most of them are not.

Let me guess, do you happen to belong the one true church? You really understand the message of Jesus while all the other denominations practice a twisted version of Christianity. It seems to be a pretty common claim in Christianity. I bet if I asked the denominations they would say that judging by your theology and practices that clearly it is you who does not "follow after the Lord". It is a pity that Jesus couldn't have been more specific about what he wanted instead of leaving everything open to interpretation, talking in vague parables and giving evasive answers to questions allowing people to read into what he says and draw their own conclusions, he really was a typical politician.

wolfsbane · 16-03-2008 05:47PM

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

Let me guess, do you happen to belong the one true church? You really understand the message of Jesus while all the other denominations practice a twisted version of Christianity. It seems to be a pretty common claim in Christianity. I bet if I asked the denominations they would say that judging by your theology and practices that clearly it is you who does not "follow after the Lord". It is a pity that Jesus couldn't have been more specific about what he wanted instead of leaving everything open to interpretation, talking in vague parables and giving evasive answers to questions allowing people to read into what he says and draw their own conclusions, he really was a typical politician.

Yes, I belong the one true church. As do millions of others, found in a multitude of denominations and local churches. Baptist, Presbyterian, Methodist, Mennonites, etc. The one true church is a spiritual entity, not found in any one physical manifestation.

That many denominations no longer believe in their own creeds is evident - indeed, openly boasted of. They have progressed beyond the faith of nomads, and are now super-sophisticated - able to correct God Himself!

Currently they show their godlessness by practising and tolerating of all kinds of sin; formerly by practising it and persecuting any who opposed their error.

They loved power and used it when they had it. They still love it, for the love of God is not in them, but thankfully their wings have been clipped for the present.

Jesus was clear enough to leave all without excuse. There are differences over theology that divide true Christians, but none so that allow us to lead a wicked life. God expects us to study His word so that we will grow in His grace and knowledge. One Day we will be perfect in it - but not until then.

lostexpectation · 16-03-2008 06:26PM

missionaries job is to spread the fath first feed people second.

Hero Of College · 16-03-2008 07:16PM

lostexpectation wrote: »

missionaries job is to spread the fath first feed people second.

As opposed to Islamic Janissaries, whose job it is to Kill and ask questions later.

Pompey Magnus · 16-03-2008 07:21PM

wolfsbane wrote: »

Currently they show their godlessness by practising and tolerating of all kinds of sin; formerly by practising it and persecuting any who opposed their error

Ah to be back in the good old days when it was the sinners who were persecuted and burned at the stake by the Godly. Of course the poor Christians today are suffering even worse persecution at the hands of the heathens.

They loved power and used it when they had it. They still love it, for the love of God is not in them, but thankfully their wings have been clipped for the present.

It is a bit rich for a Christian to criticise the Church use of power. The existance of Christianity today is down chiefly to its close relationship with earthly power and wealth. Had Christianity not taken control of the Roman Empire then it would not be alive today, it would have died out like any number of fringe cults have. You may delude yourself into thinking it succeeded because it was the most moral religion (its not!), in reality it succeeded because Emperor Constantine cleverly saw in it a perfect religion to consolidate his position as Emperor and unite the Empire. Christianity without power, wealth and force is nothing.

It is funny that Christians are only starting to scoff at the earthly persuit of power once they have begun to lose it.

PDN · 17-03-2008 12:57PM

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Currently they show their godlessness by practising and tolerating of all kinds of sin; formerly by practising it and persecuting any who opposed their error

Ah to be back in the good old days when it was the sinners who were persecuted and burned at the stake by the Godly. Of course the poor Christians today are suffering even worse persecution at the hands of the heathens.

That is, of course, the exact opposite of what Wolfsbane said. He said, quite rightly, that it was the ungodly who burnt people at the stake.

It is a bit rich for a Christian to criticise the Church use of power. The existance of Christianity today is down chiefly to its close relationship with earthly power and wealth. Had Christianity not taken control of the Roman Empire then it would not be alive today, it would have died out like any number of fringe cults have. You may delude yourself into thinking it succeeded because it was the most moral religion (its not!), in reality it succeeded because Emperor Constantine cleverly saw in it a perfect religion to consolidate his position as Emperor and unite the Empire. Christianity without power, wealth and force is nothing.

It is funny that Christians are only starting to scoff at the earthly persuit of power once they have begun to lose it.

This is historically illiterate. Christianity, prior to being hijacked by Constantine, had already grown way beyond the numbers or influence ever achieved by any of the fringe cults. This growth occurred primarily under persecution. This fact led one early church father, Tertullian, to make the famous comment that semen est sanguis Christianorum - or "the blood of Christians is seed".

Counterfactual history is always a bit of a guessing game (I do enjoy those What If? books) but I think there is a fair argument to be made that Constantine drastically hindered the growth of Christianity by watering it down and paganising it.

Today the most dramatic growth in world Christianity is still occurring under conditions of persecution (China).

It is hardly 'rich' for a Christian to criticise the Church use of power. The use of that power was a denial of the commands of Jesus, so it is perfectly proper for someone who is attempting to follow the teachings of Jesus to point out the duplicity of the political power structures that have frequently masqueraded as Christianity over the last 2000 years.

It seems as if this is an area where atheists slam Christians no matter what they say. I remember threads on this board where posters tried to defend certain actions in Church history and got slammed as a result. Now Wolfsbane is being attacked for criticising those actions. I guess that demonstrates that some just come on here to abuse Christians no matter what rather than to engage in serious discussion about Christianity.

BrianCalgary · 17-03-2008 02:31PM

robindch wrote: »

It happened here in Ireland during the famine, when protestant organizations provided food, but only if you swore allegiance to 'protestantism' first. The starving people who did this were derisively called 'soupers' and you can find out about them easily on the internet.

There are many, many more examples. That's just one.

DOnt want to split hairs but that is a conversion to a denomination not to Christianity. Pretty disgusting stuff.

Not to shut you down robin, but I was hoping for an answer from timk1, who made the claim.

robindch · 17-03-2008 03:10PM

BrianCalgary wrote: »

DOnt want to split hairs but that is a conversion to a denomination not to Christianity.

Some posters would disagree, saying that their version of christianity is the right one and that all others are false (meaning they're not christian). But there are plenty of other examples around the place of more distantly (un)related religions doing the same thing. That was one that happened here in Dublin not so long ago.

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Not to shut you down robin, but I was hoping for an answer from timk1, who made the claim.

Fair enough. And I was trying help out timk1 who may not have known about the soupers

Pray, continue!

do athiests and agnostics go to heaven

Comments