Food for thought: Can you be happy with a family member or friend in hell?

antiskeptic

indioblack wrote: »

If this hypothetical relative of yours has the same mindset as yourself, they are not rejecting Jesus or the offer of salvation - since they think that God does not exist. Therefore, if their disbelief is as yours, there is no fact that they are going to hell - only the thinking of others who do believe in God.
If, on the other hand, they acknowledge God exists but then reject him - then they might go to hell - for they would have accepted the existence of God and all that follows from that - including the possibility of hell as a destination.

The acceptance or otherwise doesn't need to take place in the intellect. A person answers the question posed elsewhere in their being. In the heart/soul.

J C

Jessie Round Drug wrote: »

Indeed! Next thing they'll be telling us is that Jesus is dead )

... or never existed in the first place.:)
Of course Jesus exists ... and every knee shall (eventually) bow and every tongue shall (eventually) confess that He is Lord.

Philippians 2:10-11New King James Version (NKJV)
10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth, 11 and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

indioblack

Jessie Round Drug wrote: »

Whether a person believes in gravity or not is inconsequential. They still feel it's effects.
not believing in God doesn't negate the existence of Hell or God's judgement of us. Whether we believe or not, we will still be judged by Him, every one of us.

Belief cannot be inconsequential. A person who does not believe will not enter heaven.

smacl

J C wrote: »

... to paraphrase Shakespeare ... methinks the A & A ladies doth protest too much !!!:)

As the poster on this thread with the most posts on the A&A forum and a bunch of Dawkins quotes in your signature, I'm assuming you're referring to your good self there?

As for Gandhi, my own personal belief is that he is neither in heaven nor hell, as that would require me to be a Christian. Where would you place him at this point in time J C?

Nick Park

smacl wrote: »

As for Gandhi, my own personal belief is that he is neither in heaven nor hell, as that would require me to be a Christian.

I don't think it would require you to be a Christian, lots of people other than Christians believe in heaven and hell.

antiskeptic

indioblack wrote: »

Belief cannot be inconsequential. A person who does not believe will not enter heaven.

To put it biblically, a person who does not believe God will not enter heaven. I conclude this because, "believing God" is the common denominator in those whom the Bible uses to illustrate how a person comes to be saved.

Believing God (the communication involved being able to occur in a variety of ways) is not the same as believing in the existence of (the biblical) God.

Which suggests that a person who believes God, but might not believe in the biblical God, enters heaven.

Which opens the field somewhat.

recedite

antiskeptic wrote: »

Which suggests that a person who believes God but might not believe in the biblical God enters heaven.

Which opens the field somewhat.

If St Peter opens the pearly gates for anyone who believes in the hindu "godhead" concept, or the hippy universe concept (as in "the universe wants this to happen") then Gandhi could well be squatting up there.

But that begs the next question; if the place is full of hippies, can it truly be described as heaven?

antiskeptic

recedite wrote: »

If St Peter opens the pearly gates for anyone who believes in the hindu "godhead" concept, or the hippy universe concept (as in "the universe wants this to happen") then Gandhi could well be squatting up there.

What else a person believes isn't the issue. The issue is whether they believe God in the specific elements which pertain to salvation

But that begs the next question; if the place is full of hippies, can it truly be described as heaven?

The indications are that there will be a lot of shedding of useless baggage. Whether it be the hippy's notion of reality or mine.

smacl

antiskeptic wrote: »

What else a person believes isn't the issue. The issue is whether they believe God in the specific elements which pertain to salvation

The indications are that there will be a lot of shedding of useless baggage. Whether it be the hippy's notion of reality or mine.

Where does that leave idolatry and the worship of false gods though? Whatever about interpreting broadly similar religions as being close enough to get you past the line, so to speak, those that have no relationship to Christianity, e.g. Scientology, will hardly meet the above criterion. Nonetheless, you will still have virtuous people from such traditions.

smacl

Nick Park wrote: »

I don't think it would require you to be a Christian, lots of people other than Christians believe in heaven and hell.

Not sure how many non-Christians would believe there is a heaven populated with Christians. While other religions might have analogous concepts, are you sure they're referring the the same place (or state if you prefer).

antiskeptic

smacl wrote: »

Where does that leave idolatry and the worship of false gods though?

Having a false god breaks God's command. But our breaking God's commands is a problem salvation aims to resolve.

Worshipping a false god isn't exactly something a Christian is immune to. Indeed, a central point of post-salvation activity (a.k.a. sanctification) is to grow us out of our worshipping of false gods. They come in many guises - not just images carved from wood.

Whatever about interpreting broadly similar religions as being close enough to get you past the line, so to speak, those that have no relationship to Christianity, e.g. Scientology, will hardly meet the above criterion. Nonetheless, you will still have virtuous people from such traditions.

I don't suppose it's the broadly similar aspects of other religions that will get someone over the line.

What I suppose is that God's mechanism of salvation circumvents all religion (even Christian religion) to deal with the heart of the issue.

It's God's gig, a one-to-one with each and every person on the planet, irrespective of the religion of their society, irrespective of their education, socio-economic standing, intelligence, etc.

-

It's not a person's virtue that determines whether they are worthy or not. Rather, it's their sin* and how they approach the issue of their sin, that is integral to the mechanism of their salvation (or not).

*sin in it's widest context. A drug addict suffers the effect of their/others sin. Those effects might be what causes the addict to question what they are doing (and how to escape the trap) rather than any 'religious' notion of sin.

Nick Park

smacl wrote: »

Not sure how many non-Christians would believe there is a heaven populated with Christians. While other religions might have analogous concepts, are you sure they're referring the the same place (or state if you prefer).

Surveys indicate that, of people with no religious affiliation , fairly large percentages (between 30 and 50%) believe in heaven and hell. Weird, I know, but there's nowt so queer as folk.

smacl

Nick Park wrote: »

Surveys indicate that, of people with no religious affiliation , fairly large percentages (between 30 and 50%) believe in heaven and hell. Weird, I know, but there's nowt so queer as folk.

Do you have a link for that perhaps? Seems like something of a contradiction in terms, as belief in heaven and hell is a religious belief. Whether you can hold religious beliefs without any religious affiliation seem like a matter of semantics.

Nick Park

smacl wrote: »

Do you have a link for that perhaps? Seems like something of a contradiction in terms, as belief in heaven and hell is a religious belief. Whether you can hold religious beliefs without any religious affiliation seem like a matter of semantics.

Hmm, funnily enough, when people describe themselves as having no religion in the Irish census, the folks on the A&A Forum seem to accept that readily enough without dismissing it as semantics.

Links for the surveys? No problem:

This page cites a 1999 UCLA poll that showed 58% of those with no religious affiliation as believing in heaven and hell. It also indicates an increase in belief in hell as American society becomes more secularised.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/polls-about-life-after-death.htm

And then we have this little gem: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/kathleen-weldon/paradise-polled-americans_b_7587538.html

In a 2014 CBS News poll, the most recent on the subject, 66% of respondents said they believed in heaven and hell, 11% in heaven only, and 17% in neither. Americans who don’t identify with any particular religion or are atheist or agnostic are much less likely to say they believe in either heaven or hell. Just under half say they believe in neither, while 36% believe in both and 7% in heaven only. In a 2013 Pew poll, 27% of agnostics and 13% of atheists said they believed in some kind of afterlife.

It looks like it ain't just the Christians who lack a consensus when it comes to belief or unbelief about heaven and hell.

smacl

Nick Park wrote: »

It looks like it ain't just the Christians who lack a consensus when it comes to belief or unbelief about heaven and hell.

Yes indeed, looking at that Pew poll of 2014, it appears that 3% of atheists believe in hell and 5% believe in heaven. In the same poll 15% of Christians don't believe in heaven and 30% don't believe in hell. Seems to be a fair number of rather confused folk across the pond.



Reminds me a bit of this thread on here some time back, posted by a Christian, wondering whether many priests don't actually believe in God.

While I fully support the right for a person to self identify however they choose, an atheist that believes in heaven or a Christian that doesn't seems rather peculiar.

uck51js9zml2yt

smacl wrote: »

Yes indeed, looking at that Pew poll of 2014, it appears that 3% of atheists believe in hell and 5% believe in heaven. In the same poll 15% of Christians don't believe in heaven and 30% don't believe in hell. Seems to be a fair number of rather confused folk across the pond.



Reminds me a bit of this thread on here some time back, posted by a Christian, wondering whether many priests don't actually believe in God.

While I fully support the right for a person to self identify however they choose, an atheist that believes in heaven or a Christian that doesn't seems rather peculiar.

im inclined to agree. Its also odd that atheists on here seem to think they know more about Christianity that the Christians themselves.:)

Peregrinus

smacl wrote: »

Yes indeed, looking at that Pew poll of 2014, it appears that 3% of atheists believe in hell and 5% believe in heaven. In the same poll 15% of Christians don't believe in heaven and 30% don't believe in hell. Seems to be a fair number of rather confused folk across the pond.

The confusion may be closer to home, smacl.

As we never tire of pointing out on this board, the only thing that defines an atheist is that he doesn't believe in God; he can believe in anything else, including an afterlife, heaven or hell. And conversely theist believes in god but doesn't have to believe in anything else, including heaven, hell or an afterlife of any kind. It's the failure to bear this in mind which is leading to your confusion.

smacl

Peregrinus wrote: »

The confusion may be closer to home, smacl.

Could well be, P, but whatever about an afterlife, believing in Heaven without believing in a God or gods seems contradictory from where I'm sitting. Heaven (in the religious sense) is defined as

MW wrote:

a: often capitalized :the dwelling place of the Deity and the blessed dead.
b: a spiritual state of everlasting communion with God

recedite

smacl wrote: »

whatever about an afterlife, believing in Heaven without believing in a God or gods seems contradictory from where I'm sitting. Heaven (in the religious sense) is defined as

But if we include Shangri La, and Valhalla, and even a really good spa, that opens up the field somewhat.

From your link...

4 :a place or condition of utmost happiness :something that is very pleasant or enjoyable

• Our week at the spa was sheer heaven.

smacl

recedite wrote: »

But if we include Shangri La, and Valhalla, and even a really good spa, that opens up the field somewhat.

Not really though, Valhalla is ruled over by Odin, Shangri-la is simply a mystical place from a 1933 novel. You might as well suggest that Hogwarts is heaven using that line of reasoning. Similarly, an atheist that thinks they're going to spend a week in a health spa post-mortem is a rather confused soul wouldn't your say?

I would suggest that the atheists in the poll that believe in heaven are more likely people who simply like the moniker but are nonetheless retain religious beliefs. A bit like people over here calling themselves Catholic, but when asked admitting they don't actually believe in God as such. People can self identify however they wish, even if that identity might appear rather confused.

Nick Park

smacl wrote: »

I would suggest that the atheists in the poll that believe in heaven are more likely people who simply like the moniker but are nonetheless retain religious beliefs. A bit like people over here calling themselves Catholic, but when asked admitting they don't actually believe in God as such. People can self identify however they wish, even if that identity might appear rather confused.

antiskeptic

Nick Park wrote: »

smacl

Calling a 'No true Scotsman fallacy' on an outlier group making up 5% of a population is something of a stretch Nick. This does seem to be a manoeuvre favoured by Christian apologetics, to the extent it has been referred to as the “The No True Christian Fallacy” as discussed here. From the same paper;

What the philosopher Antony Flew dubbed, ‘The No True Scotsman Move’ (Flew,1975) has grown exponentially, cited in many blogs, religious and atheist apologetic web-pages, and other forms of social media. It has become a social epidemic, one which I argue, is destructive to dialogue and reasonable tolerance. Antony Flew never called it a fallacy, nor do scholars working in the fields of philosophy or informal logic. Nevertheless, the ‘move’ has transformed into ‘The No True Scotsman’ (NTS) fallacy where arguers use it as a tool, if not, a weapon, to reproach their opponent – proving them wrong on the basis that they have committed this ‘fallacy’ and failing in their epistemic duty of being open-minded to consider objections to their cherished views. Most of the discussion surrounding the No True Scotsman Move, or fallacy is naive as are most explanations of logical fallacies on the web.

Sound familiar?

Nick Park

smacl wrote: »

Calling a 'No true Scotsman fallacy' on an outlier group making up 5% of a population is something of a stretch Nick.

Why is it a stretch? The size of the group in question has no bearing whatsoever on whether such a fallacy is being committed.

Imagine Hamish McDonald, a Scotsman, sitting down with his Glasgow Morning Herald and seeing an article about how the "Brighton Sex Maniac Strikes Again". Hamish is shocked and declares that "No Scotsman would do such a thing." The next day he sits down to read his Glasgow Morning Herald again; and, this time, finds an article about an Aberdeen man whose brutal actions make the Brighton sex maniac seem almost gentlemanly. This fact shows that Hamish was wrong in his opinion, but is he going to admit this? Not likely. This time he says: "No true Scotsman would do such a thing." - Antony Flew

smacl

Nick Park wrote: »

Why is it a stretch? The size of the group in question has no bearing whatsoever on whether such a fallacy is being committed.

Fair enough, though the point remains that until you or someone else can come up with a broadly accepted definition of heaven (in the religious meaning of the word) which does not imply the existence of one or more gods, the notion of an atheist believing in heaven (as opposed to any other kind of afterlife) is contradictory. Also, it seems dubious whether NTS is actually a fallacy in the first instance, however popular it might be by those engaging in religious apologetics.

antiskeptic

smacl wrote: »

Fair enough, though the point remains that until you or someone else can come up with a broadly accepted definition of heaven (in the religious meaning of the word) which does not imply the existence of one or more gods, the notion of an atheist believing in heaven (as opposed to any other kind of afterlife) is contradictory. Also, it seems dubious whether NTS is actually a fallacy in the first instance, however popular it might be by those engaging in religious apologetics.

Surely it is your compatriot, heaven-believing Scotsmen atheists that you should be consulting on this?

J C

smacl wrote: »

As the poster on this thread with the most posts on the A&A forum and a bunch of Dawkins quotes in your signature, I'm assuming you're referring to your good self there?

Perhaps over on the A & A ... I may have protested too much ... but now I rarely visit the place ... whilst traffic is very definitely in the other direction to this forum.:)

smacl wrote: »

As for Gandhi, my own personal belief is that he is neither in heaven nor hell, as that would require me to be a Christian. Where would you place him at this point in time J C?

I don't know ... that would be a matter between himself and Jesus Christ.

J C

Jessie Round Drug wrote: »

im inclined to agree. Its also odd that atheists on here seem to think they know more about Christianity that the Christians themselves.:)

... and ironically, in my experience, many (self-professed) Atheists do know more about Christianity than many Christians themselves.

... strange ... but often true !!!:eek:

Nick Park

smacl wrote: »

Fair enough, though the point remains that until you or someone else can come up with a broadly accepted definition of heaven (in the religious meaning of the word) which does not imply the existence of one or more gods, the notion of an atheist believing in heaven (as opposed to any other kind of afterlife) is contradictory.

Heaven - a state of bliss or happiness after death. That's probably how most people understand it.

Also, it seems dubious whether NTS is actually a fallacy in the first instance, however popular it might be by those engaging in religious apologetics.

No, I don't think it seems dubious at all. You included one citation, but it is obviously suspect since it makes the claim that "Antony Flew never called it a fallacy, nor do scholars working in the fields of philosophy or informal logic."

Five minutes googling will produce a plethora of instances where recognised philosophers call it a fallacy. And even Flew's obituaries referred to it as a fallacy.

Here's the real funny thing. Numerous atheists online (including boards.ie A&A regulars) are quite happy to accuse Christians of this fallacy. But the moment an atheist commits it, then all of a sudden it's a case of "Ah well, now, maybe it isn't a fallacy at all."

You couldn't make it up.

uck51js9zml2yt

J C wrote: »

... and ironically, in my experience, many (self-professed) Atheists do know more about Christianity than many Christians themselves.

... strange ... but often true !!!:eek:

That's one for Ripley's believe it or not!

J C

Nick Park wrote: »

Here's the real funny thing. Numerous atheists online (including boards.ie A&A regulars) are quite happy to accuse Christians of this fallacy. But the moment an atheist commits it, then all of a sudden it's a case of "Ah well, now, maybe it isn't a fallacy at all."

... and thus it becomes 'no true fallacy would be like this fallacy'!!!:eek:

Nick Park wrote: »

You couldn't make it up.

You could try to make it up ... but nobody would believe you!!!:)

Truth is often stranger than fiction, Nick!!!:)

smacl

Nick Park wrote: »

Heaven - a state of bliss or happiness after death. That's probably how most people understand it

Interesting that most people's understanding of a word would concur with your understanding of that word rather than the definition you'd find in the dictionary.

You couldn't make it up.

Maybe that's because I didn't make it up, I provided a reference. That said, I guess you're more of an expert when it comes to making things up so once again, I'll bow out and leave you to it.

Nick Park

smacl wrote: »

Interesting that most people's understanding of a word would concur with your understanding of that word rather than the definition you'd find in the dictionary.

Sorry, wrong again. My understanding of, and definition of, heaven would actually be quite different (as I already explained earlier in this thread).

Maybe that's because I didn't make it up, I provided a reference.

A 'reference' which represented one guy's opinion and, as we've already noted, was factually incorrect in its claim that no scholars of philosophy refer to the No True Scotsman Fallacy as a fallacy.

Among the philosophers who refer to the True Scotsman Fallacy are:

Peter Boghossian (Assistant Professor of Philosophy at Portland State University. His primary research areas are critical thinking, philosophy of education, and moral reasoning. Boghossian is a speaker for the Center for Inquiry, the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science, and the Secular Student Alliance.)

Professor John Mullarkey (Chair of the Society for European Philosophy)

Owen Hulatt (Teaching Fellow in the Department of Philosophy at the University of York)

That said, I guess you're more of an expert when it comes to making things up so once again, I'll bow out and leave you to it.

Oh dear, after all those false accusations earlier in the thread about me putting down anyone who held contrary opinions, this is the quality of your response to me expressing opinions contrary to your own?

Leroy42

J C wrote: »

... and ironically, in my experience, many (self-professed) Atheists do know more about Christianity than many Christians themselves.

... strange ... but often true !!!:eek:

It often true because many atheists were christrians before but took the time to read through and review the bible and the teachings and could not square the massive contractions contained not only in the bible but in the entire basis of the faith.

Most atheists would rather to have not gone through that. In most countries being atheist is seen as strange and something one has to defend rather than the other way around. So they need to learn about the faith in order to justify their non belief.

It would be true that many christians know very little more than what they have been told and pay actual little attention to the specifics. They never actually get down to questioning their belief and simply continue on without question.

A very typical response you will get when raising questions to a christian is "oh that's the old testament, doesn't count now" when if they took the time to actual read and take the actual message it would cause them to question things a bit more.

crossmolinalad

Gerrup Outta Dat! wrote: »

If you are in Heaven and you don't meet your loved one there, then their soul must be in Hell. I don't believe in it at all, so it makes no sense to me but I just want to see what actual Christians think about the situation that they could be in Heaven with loved ones in Hell.

Or is gone back to earth

antiskeptic

J C wrote: »

... and ironically, in my experience, many (self-professed) Atheists do know more about Christianity than many Christians themselves.

If my own experience (detailed in the "Church with a difference?" thread) is anything to go by, then hardly surprising.

I've taken to listening to online sermons for prospective new churches to save time actually heading into the church on a Sunday. It truly beggars belief how un-challenging and stale the teaching is.

Heck, I ventured out last Sunday and had already switched off the sermon when I heard an analogy being delivered, which I must have first heard during a seekers Alpha Course 15 years ago.

You know the one in which the Judge must convict the guilty person of the crime, but then steps down from the dock, takes out his wallet and pays the fine himself.

What on earth a Christian congregation is doing listening to this on a Sunday is simply beyond me.

An atheist anyway engaged in defending his "faith" will quickly find himself having dug deeper into Christianity than this.

EirWatchr

Leroy42 wrote: »

So they need to learn about the faith in order to justify their non belief.

If so, the only knowledge they will learn about faith is limited to, and by, their predisposition to justify that non belief.

Leroy42 wrote: »

It would be true that many christians know very little more than what they have been told and pay actual little attention to the specifics. They never actually get down to questioning their belief and simply continue on without question.

A situation that can apply to believers and non-believers alike. Atheists know what they have been told too, and from what sources - no one learns entirely independently, in a vacuum. It is true than many nominal Christians don't look to know more beyond what they have heard in their social (or on-line) circles and don't seek to expand their spiritual/theological reading and knowledge beyond that.

Questioning is integral to faith in (and a relationship with) God, as many practicing believers will tell you. The difference is that an atheist does not bring that questioning into prayer also.

smacl

EirWatchr wrote: »

A situation that can apply to believers and non-believers alike. Atheists know what they have been told too, and from what sources - no one learns entirely independently, in a vacuum.

I think one of the big differences between Christians and atheists in that regard, in this country at least, is that most Christians are raised as Christians from a very young age such that Christianity is a default truth handed down from a trusted source. Most atheists in Ireland on the other hand have not been raised as atheists, they are people who have chosen to reject religion for one reason or another. Put another way, how many atheists in this country have Christian parents and attended Christian schools? How many Christians have atheist parents and attended atheist schools?

Leroy42

Faith is the complete trust of confidence in someone or something. Questioning is the exact opposite of faith. What do you question God about? How can you question him. Who are we to question his motives. "It is God's will". "Thank the Lord" etc. These are all done so as to stifle questioning. "God must have a reason".

When you pray are you questioning God? If so, how do you deal with the non answers?

Do you really think that christians and atheist are the same in terms of their questioning? You can't honestly believe that. That doesn't mean either is right or wrong, but ask yourself this? Why are you a christian? Is it because you questioned life and found yourself drawn to the only religion that could answer your questions, or as is more likely, is it because that is what you were taught from a young age and have found no reason to change?

solodeogloria

Leroy42 wrote: »

Faith is the complete trust of confidence in someone or something. Questioning is the exact opposite of faith. What do you question God about? How can you question him. Who are we to question his motives. "It is God's will". "Thank the Lord" etc. These are all done so as to stifle questioning. "God must have a reason".

When you pray are you questioning God? If so, how do you deal with the non answers?

Do you really think that christians and atheist are the same in terms of their questioning? You can't honestly believe that. That doesn't mean either is right or wrong, but ask yourself this? Why are you a christian? Is it because you questioned life and found yourself drawn to the only religion that could answer your questions, or as is more likely, is it because that is what you were taught from a young age and have found no reason to change?

Good afternoon!

Christians place their confidence in the Bible, so obviously Christians are going to base their convictions on the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, the prophets who came before Him and the apostles guided by the Holy Spirit who came after Him.

If you want to discuss why I believe that, I'm happy to discuss that with you on the Atheist / Christian megathread.

I think Christians are people who have questioned Jesus and found that He isn't lacking and is worth staking our lives on and for.

On the main question:
As for if I am sad about the fact that people in general go to hell. Yes, of course. Am I sad that potentially friends and members of my own family could go to hell. Yes, of course.

The next question is why am I sad? Is it because God is inherently unfair? No. God is completely fair. We live in His world, He gives us life and breath and everything else. He owes us nothing. Yet we continually say no to His loving care for us in this world, we continually disregard His word and His truth about how we should best live in this world. So of course God is entitled to judge the unrepentant. God is entitled to judge everyone who disobeys Him. He could have sent me to hell without question for how I've chosen to disregard Him. This is entirely deserved. The fact that this is proposed shows that the OP doesn't understand the seriousness of our sin and rebellion against God.

Yet, He didn't. He gave His Son for me. Not only did He give His Son for me, He gave me His Spirit to help me to live for Him daily. Not only did He send Jesus to die for me, and not only did He send His Spirit to guide us, but He gave us loving brothers and sisters in fellowship together to spur one another one to love and good works as saved and rescued sinners through Jesus' rescue alone. Not because we're good because we're not, but because of Jesus.

As for whether or not I questioned life and became a Christian. That's exactly how it happened for me as a teenager. As for whether or not Christianity is the only religion that can answer all my questions. I wouldn't say that Christianity answers all my questions, but it answers the ones that matter the most.

The most important one is this. How can a holy God dwell with a sinful people? Christianity is the only religion that answers this with any form of clarity.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

EirWatchr

Leroy42 wrote: »

These are all done so as to stifle questioning

It's funny how Atheists present themselves alone as the questioners. But from the perspective of a believer, the true Atheist has in a sense stopped questioning - they have settled on an answer: there is no God. No further questioning about it is required once you have that answer. But they do continue questioning with this: why have other people not settled on the same answer as me? Again, the complacent Atheist settles on the answer for that: because believers don't question like I do. But there are Atheists who have asked all the same questions, and become believers - they have somehow arrived at a different answer, and yet were not any less intelligent, or had any less free will. Ask them why they arrived at that different place.

In answer to some of your questions - it is possible (encouraged actually) to question God, in person, in prayer. A creator is more than the creation, larger than the creation's understanding of Him, so it will always involve questioning to understand God and His nature, and also involves an acknowledgement that a person is limited and so can never reach an end of understanding about God. But you do not need to fully understand anything to experience it (such as those experiencing God in the person of Jesus Christ)

Crucially, in the life of faith, questioning and understanding require more than just relying on our effort alone. We open it to God also. (e.g. God, I do not understand you; help me to understand you.) Receiving an answer requires listening; understanding it requires contemplation. Is it the answer you want?

Leroy42 wrote: »

Why are you a Christian?

Because God asks me. I answer: yes

antiskeptic

Leroy42 wrote: »

Faith is the complete trust of confidence in someone or something. Questioning is the exact opposite of faith. What do you question God about? How can you question him. Who are we to question his motives. "It is God's will". "Thank the Lord" etc. These are all done so as to stifle questioning. "God must have a reason".

When you pray are you questioning God? If so, how do you deal with the non answers?

Do you really think that christians and atheist are the same in terms of their questioning? You can't honestly believe that. That doesn't mean either is right or wrong, but ask yourself this? Why are you a christian? Is it because you questioned life and found yourself drawn to the only religion that could answer your questions, or as is more likely, is it because that is what you were taught from a young age and have found no reason to change?

I have concluded myself to have arrived at an absolute truth (i.e. the God of the Bible exists and Jesus is my saviour). That absolute truth is a terminus of sorts. A place where a centrally important bus on which I was travelling arrived at and will go no further.

I alight from the bus and am free to navigate the terrain around me. I can ask all sorts of questions in investigating that terrain. But there is no need to question whether the terrain exists or not since that conclusion has already been settled.

I don't see how you can object to the possibility of a person arriving at an absolute truth. Unless of course, you reject the notion that there are absolute truths.

ask yourself this? Why are you a christian? Is it because you questioned life and found yourself drawn to the only religion that could answer your questions, or as is more likely, is it because that is what you were taught from a young age and have found no reason to change?

Neither of the above. I turned to an unbelieved in God because I had nowhere left to turn. No one was more surprised than me that he turned up.

hinault

Gerrup Outta Dat! wrote: »

Respectfully, I am going to say that I don't believe in God at all but I respect everyone else's right to do so. I have a question however.

If you are a firm believer and your significant other or close family member doesn't accept Jesus' salvation, are you comfortable with the fact that they will burn in Hell for all eternity? Can you be happy in Heaven with your loved one in hell?

Why would God give a person free-will not to believe, and then punish for an eternity in Hell that same person for not believing (since God created them that way).

The presumption is that those souls dwelling in hell do so because they wish to be in hell, or more precisely they do not wish to be with God in heaven.

The existence of heaven and hell is real. Therefore one must feel sad that a loved one would place themselves in such a situation for eternity.

A loved in hell is tragic, because hell is eternal. We cannot know the spiritual state of another's soul upon physical death. It may be the case that a soul receiving the sacrament of penance is saved from eternity in hell.

The church has always counselled that it is better for a soul to consider its own fate rather than speculating upon the fate of others, at its own expense.

Leroy42

hinault wrote: »

The presumption is that those souls dwelling in hell do so because they wish to be in hell, or more precisely they do not wish to be with God in heaven.

The existence of heaven and hell is real. Therefore one must feel sad that a loved one would place themselves in such a situation for eternity.

A loved in hell is tragic, because hell is eternal. We cannot know the spiritual state of another's soul upon physical death. It may be the case that a soul receiving the sacrament of penance is saved from eternity in hell.

The church has always counselled that it is better for a soul to consider its own fate rather than speculating upon the fate of others, at its own expense.

The OP was can you be happy if a loved one is in hell. You seem to have avoided answering it.

You mention that one would be sad if one knew a loved one was in hell. Sad when? On earth, no doubt, although it seems odd that one would seem sad if one agrees that hell is the rightful punishment.

But it would strike me as odd that we spend our lives on earth loving each other (something that we are told God wants us to do) but upon entering heaven we forget about that love and only care for ourselves and our relationship with God.

Does one simply forget about our time on earth, and thus our relationships, or does our eternal happiness with Gods presence mean we no longer care about the suffering of others?

One can agree that a loved one deserves to be in prison for a crime, but I doubt that makes one happy. And if asked I would wager that most families would prefer there loved one home rather than in jail.

But we are expected to believe that one can be happy in heaven knowing that a loved one is now suffering for eternity in hell. Do people really think that it matters nothing to parents if their baby dies during childbirth without a chance for baptism and thus their original sin remains. This means they go to hell.

So they are tormented on Earth but they lose this compassion when they go to heaven? Doesn't make sense.

Jesus said turn the other cheek, yet God condemns billions to hell every year with no chance of redemption for little more than not knowing about him.

Nick Park

Leroy42 wrote: »

Do people really think that it matters nothing to parents if their baby dies during childbirth without a chance for baptism and thus their original sin remains. This means they go to hell.

Nonsense. I know of no major denomination that teaches any such thing. Also, having been involved in Christian leadership for over 30 years, I have never met a Christian who believed this to be the case.

Jesus said turn the other cheek, yet God condemns billions to hell every year with no chance of redemption for little more than not knowing about him.

Again, of the thousands of Christians I know, I can't think of a single one who would believe that people are sent to hell for not knowing about God.

Leroy42

Originally Posted by Leroy42 View Post
Do people really think that it matters nothing to parents if their baby dies during childbirth without a chance for baptism and thus their original sin remains. This means they go to hell.

Nick Park wrote: »

Nonsense. I know of no major denomination that teaches any such thing. Also, having been involved in Christian leadership for over 30 years, I have never met a Christian who believed this to be the case.

That was certainly not the teaching of the church for hundreds of years. Why are we baptised? Are we not all born with original sin? I was always under the impression that we are born with original sin and the baptism cleans us of that sin.

Nick Park wrote: »

Again, of the thousands of Christians I know, I can't think of a single one who would believe that people are sent to hell for not knowing about God.

In terms of teaching, are you saying that people who do not believe in God and/or Jesus still go to heaven but Christians will be sent to hell for not believing? “I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me” (Jn. 14:6). So which is it?


But let us take a stop back. If a christian believes in heaven and hell, and thus should go to one or other, how can you be happy to find out that your Mam/Dad etc are not in heaven afterall but suffering eternity in hell.

I mean, think of the worst possible things that can happen to your loved ones. Torture, rape, mental torture etc etc, and multiply that by infinity and then have that for all eternity.

As a Christian, are you saying that you would be happy in heaven knowing that was where your loved ones are? I find that staggering to be honest.

We are told to be compassionate, love thy neighbour. But it seems that all disappears when we get to heaven. Which is strange, because it is one of the factors to get us into heaven in the first place.

smacl

Nick Park wrote: »

Again, of the thousands of Christians I know, I can't think of a single one who would believe that people are sent to hell for not knowing about God.

No true Christian then, not even a Scottish one?

Nick Park

smacl wrote: »

No true Christian then, not even a Scottish one?

Oh, I'm quite sure if you dig hard enough you can find a self-professed Christian who believes any outlandish thing.

And, if you can find reputable sources that demonstrates that between 30% and 50% of Christians actually believe such stuff, then I assure you that I will gladly hold up my hands and admit that I was wrong, rather than quoting a dodgy and factually incorrect essay to try to deny the obvious.

Is that fair enough?

Nick Park

Leroy42 wrote: »

That was certainly not the teaching of the church for hundreds of years. Why are we baptised? Are we not all born with original sin? I was always under the impression that we are born with original sin and the baptism cleans us of that sin.

So you don't want to discuss the thread subject about whether Christians can be happy with a family member in hell? Instead you want to discuss what one branch of Christianity might have have believed in the Middle Ages?

I think you'e barking up a wrong tree here, but I'm a polite kind of guy so I'll answer your direct questions as to what I believe as a Christian leader:

1. We are baptised as a public confession of the faith that we have placed in Jesus Christ. It is a symbol that declares, "I'm not turning back to my old life."

2. Yes, I believe we are all born with original sin. That means that we have an inbuilt propensity toward sin that, sooner or later, will result in us making sinful choices.

I do not believe that original sin condemns anyone to hell. Nor do I believe that baptism cleans you of original sin.

In terms of teaching, are you saying that people who do not believe in God and/or Jesus still go to heaven but Christians will be sent to hell for not believing? “I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me” (Jn. 14:6). So which is it?

First of all, I prefer to talk about eternal life, rather than heaven. The Bible, as historically understood by the Christian Church, does not see us as floating around in heaven for eternity.

I am saying that millions of people who never believed in Jesus will, in my opinion and that of most Christians, spend eternity with Jesus Christ. I refer. of course, to children who died before the age of accountability and therefore never consciously committed sin.

I suppose if you rip John 14:6 out of context (in response to a direct question asking how the disciples would know the way to the Father) you could pretend that is contradictory to what I just stated. But I think that would say a lot more about the motives who try to quote Scripture out of context than it would shed any light on the subject of the thread.

But let us take a stop back. If a christian believes in heaven and hell, and thus should go to one or other, how can you be happy to find out that your Mam/Dad etc are not in heaven afterall but suffering eternity in hell.

I answered that already (post number 7 in this thread) where I suggested that we need to lay aside pop-culture ideas of eternity as a state of drug-induced perpetual happiness, and instead embrace a more grown up and biblical view.

I mean, think of the worst possible things that can happen to your loved ones. Torture, rape, mental torture etc etc, and multiply that by infinity and then have that for all eternity.

As a Christian, are you saying that you would be happy in heaven knowing that was where your loved ones are? I find that staggering to be honest.

While your concept of hell is interesting, it might not match the beliefs of Christians here. Given the question in the OP was addressed to Christians, don't you think might be better to allow them to reconcile their faith for eternity with their concept of hell, not yours?

We are told to be compassionate, love thy neighbour. But it seems that all disappears when we get to heaven. Which is strange, because it is one of the factors to get us into heaven in the first place.

No, these things don't get us into heaven at all. I believe my eternity is determined by placing my faith in Jesus Christ. While my love and compassion are indeed a consequence of that faith, they play no part at all in getting me to heaven or anywhere else.

Btw, I think you are making a false assumption in arguing that joy in eternity is incompatible with having love and compassion for those who chose to take a different direction. A mature view of eternity should be able to envisage a place of joy, celebration of a victory well won, but with thoughts of sadness because some of our loved ones chose to reject Christ.

Leroy42

I certainly did not intend to drag this off topic. The point I was trying to make about non believers, babies etc was not to get into a deep discussion but rather to point out the more complicated areas apart from people who live full lives and reject God.

There are plenty of people that nether know of God or have the chance to follow Jesus and I was asking if they get into heaven.
I didn’t rip the quote out of context. It is a direct quote from the bible. What Jesus actually said. I fail to see why he would say this and not finish it by saying that there are other ways as well.

Love they neighbour and compassion are not a consequence of following Jesus. There are plenty of people in other religions and non that are loving and compassionate without any belief in Jesus. On what basis do those that don’t know of Jesus get accepted into Heaven then?
Back to the OP, your answer about joy with thoughts of sadness is the knub of the issue. What level of sadness do you think you will have. I am happy to acknowledge that people have different versions of both Heaven and hell. I think a simple version would be that hell is the absence of God. Whatever versions you believe, hell is the opposite of heaven and therefore from the perspective of heaven hell must be bad.

I would be tormented if I was aware that my child was being tortured on a daily basis. Or simply away from me and scared and alone. This would overtake nearly every aspect of my life. You only have to look at the parents of missing children to know the effect it has. So I think “thoughts of sadness” seems a little off. Why would we care more on Earth that you would in heaven. IS it simply because you got your reward and so care less for others?

Regardless of your belief in Jesus, or version of heaven, it seems odd to me that people can claim that they would be happy to know that their loved ones were damned for eternity to be without God for something as simple as questioning God.

That is the bit I am having difficulty reconciling. Now, it may well be that we operate under different rules in heaven, but since we cannot know that it seem odd to guess what they are in a way to try to counter why we would not feel pain for missing ones in heaven.

If you found out today that your granny, dad, mam etc were not in heaven but actually in hell, how do you think you would react? From your responses so far you you would appear to simply accept it as correct and move on. I find that very odd and not in line with the compassion that Jesus spoke of.