Can Atheists Go To Heaven?

• riders1

  

  That's why God sends prophets to us because we can't interpret the rightly and so he sent them through the ages to show us the way.
• Y-Town Steelhound

  

  So a council over a thousand years ago decided which gospels were "relevant" and we still hold only these books as "relevant" today? They also thought you could buy your way to heaven back then.
• Y-Town Steelhound

  

  riders1;757420 wrote:That's why God sends prophets to us because we can't interpret the rightly and so he sent them through the ages to show us the way.

  
  Yea but he hasn't sent one in a while so we're a little confused. Also these "false prophets" have a tendency to show up to further complicate things.
• jmog

  Y-Town Steelhound;757463 wrote:So a council over a thousand years ago decided which gospels were "relevant" and we still hold only these books as "relevant" today? They also thought you could buy your way to heaven back then.

  
  Council of Nicea wasn't that long after Christ was on the Earth (couple generations) so yes, they could determine what was authentic as well as what was "relevant" to the Chrisitan faith. What was relevant for the Christian faith 1700 years ago is still relevant today.
  
  Any proof that those in the Council of Nicea believed you could buy your way to heaven? Or is that just more Dan Brown conspiracy theory BS?
• O-Trap

  

  jmog, there was a period in which "Indulgences" were sold as a means of buying one's way into heaven ...
  
  ... however, we're talking an entirely different millenium than the Council of Nicea.
• Heretic

  

  Y-Town Steelhound;757466 wrote:Yea but he hasn't sent one in a while so we're a little confused. Also these "false prophets" have a tendency to show up to further complicate things.

  
  Just follow me. I am the way.
• riders1

  

  Y-Town Steelhound;757466 wrote:Yea but he hasn't sent one in a while so we're a little confused. Also these "false prophets" have a tendency to show up to further complicate things.

  
  Yes but if their are false prophets out there, then there has to be a true prophet in this last church age, it's just that most don't know him. If you have counterfeit dollar bills, then their has to be a real dollar bill also.
  
  How many recognized Jesus as what he was when he walked the earth? Very few and its is still the same today.
• O-Trap

  

  riders1;757829 wrote:Yes but if their are false prophets out there, then there has to be a true prophet in this last church age, it's just that most don't know him. If you have counterfeit dollar bills, then their has to be a real dollar bill also.
  
  How many recognized Jesus as what he was when he walked the earth? Very few and its is still the same today.

  
  Um, false prophets don't necessitate a true prophet at the same time. Why on earth would you suggest that? Moreover, do you have a reference for it? Care to cite the Bible on it?
  
  One thing I've got to give Skyhook. It might even annoy me at times, but he certainly doesn't claim belief in the Bible and then spout something that doesn't exist therein.
• riders1

  

  The true has been here in this age, just as Malachi 4:5-6 said he would before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord.
• O-Trap

  

  You do know that Malachi is not written as an apocalyptic piece, right?
• riders1

  

  Malachi was the last of the writing prophets and as such you can read his prophesy and believe as you will, you always have a choice when it comes to believing God's word.
• OSH

  

  riders1;757868 wrote:Malachi was the last of the writing prophets and as such you can read his prophesy and believe as you will, you always have a choice when it comes to believing God's word.

  
  That is FAR, FAR, FAR from the truth.
  
  The authors wrote in multiple contexts, the context of the time (the period in which they lived), they also wrote in context of what they knew (obviously there is a big difference in what we know and have now compared to what they knew and had), they also had "motivation" in writing (Holy Spirit, God speaking directly to them, etc.), and numerous other contexts. We have to take ALL of that into account when reading the Bible. We can't just take it and go however we want.
  
  Taking it however we want, believing as we want, and interpreting how we want is the reason why Christianity is in such a mess. Because of our own selfish desires in believing as we want, and believing we have a choice in how and what we can interpret and choose led us down the path of Christians hating other Christians. We now have how many different sects, denominations, religions, etc. that all come from the same Bible? All because of "you always have a choice when it comes to believing God's word."
• O-Trap

  

  OSH;757886 wrote:That is FAR, FAR, FAR from the truth.
  
  The authors wrote in multiple contexts, the context of the time (the period in which they lived), they also wrote in context of what they knew (obviously there is a big difference in what we know and have now compared to what they knew and had), they also had "motivation" in writing (Holy Spirit, God speaking directly to them, etc.), and numerous other contexts. We have to take ALL of that into account when reading the Bible. We can't just take it and go however we want.
  
  Taking it however we want, believing as we want, and interpreting how we want is the reason why Christianity is in such a mess. Because of our own selfish desires in believing as we want, and believing we have a choice in how and what we can interpret and choose led us down the path of Christians hating other Christians. We now have how many different sects, denominations, religions, etc. that all come from the same Bible? All because of "you always have a choice when it comes to believing God's word."

  +1. You said it better and more succinctly than I could have.
• riders1

  

  We have the choice to believe or not believe God's word, the understanding and interpretation of that word comes from God as he reveals it to his children through his prophets and do you think God only sent prophets in the Old Testament. Jesus Christ the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow, God never changes, only our thoughts change, you don't learn God in a seminary but through his continuing revelation, and for that he sent prophets and a way to test if they are false or true.
  Believe not the false but listen to the true. It doesn't come through the seminary and head knowledge by reading the bible like a newspaper, but through God's revealing himself to his chosen people.
• Skyhook79

  

  The Bible isn’t such a complex document that it requires years of formal education before you can begin to comprehend it. I’ve always believed the Bible was meant to be understood by any believer who can read and has a serious interest in knowing what it says. I believe the Bible is best approached by relying on the power of the Holy Spirit rather than one’s own intellect. James 1:5 says that any of us who lacks wisdom need only ask God who gives generously to all without finding fault.
  The person without the Spirit can not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God regardless of his level of mental "intellect". (1 Cor. 2:14) This is why we hear of people who tried to read the Bible as non-believers and found they couldn’t figure it out, but as soon as they were born again it began to make sense. They didn’t suddenly become more intelligent, they simply gained the supernatural insight of the Holy Spirit who teaches us all things. (John 14:26)
  
  I love this quote from Dr. D.L. Cooper:
  “When the plain sense of scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense; therefore, take every word at its primary, ordinary, usual, literal meaning unless the facts of the immediate context, studied in the light of related passages and axiomatic and fundamental truths, indicate clearly otherwise.” Dr. D.L. Cooper
• jmog

  OSH;757886 wrote:That is FAR, FAR, FAR from the truth.
  
  The authors wrote in multiple contexts, the context of the time (the period in which they lived), they also wrote in context of what they knew (obviously there is a big difference in what we know and have now compared to what they knew and had), they also had "motivation" in writing (Holy Spirit, God speaking directly to them, etc.), and numerous other contexts. We have to take ALL of that into account when reading the Bible. We can't just take it and go however we want.
  
  Taking it however we want, believing as we want, and interpreting how we want is the reason why Christianity is in such a mess. Because of our own selfish desires in believing as we want, and believing we have a choice in how and what we can interpret and choose led us down the path of Christians hating other Christians. We now have how many different sects, denominations, religions, etc. that all come from the same Bible? All because of "you always have a choice when it comes to believing God's word."

  
  I couldn't have said it better myself. Bravo!
• O-Trap

  

  riders1;758012 wrote:We have the choice to believe or not believe God's word, the understanding and interpretation of that word comes from God as he reveals it to his children through his prophets ...

  Actually, understanding and interpretation comes from studying the text itself. Prophets that existed in the Old Testament do not exist any longer ("prophecy" in some form still does). If you've got trouble with that concept, I would encourage you to read The Prophetic Imagination by Walter Brueggemann and Plowshares and Pruning Hooks by D. Brent Sandy. They are two of the most studied, well-respected experts on biblical prophecy today, and they would contend that your assertion here is untrue.
  
  In all seriousness, when in the Bible is there EVER an example of the people needing a prophet to understand God's written Word? Prophets were God's direct mouthpiece to the people before God's message was enclosed in book form. Not once will you find that a need for understanding the Word was a prophetic presence.
  

  riders1;758012 wrote:... and do you think God only sent prophets in the Old Testament.

  No, I do not, as the Word of God was yet to be complete until after the close of the Second Temple Period, which lasted all the way up to 60 CE. I would contend that Jesus was a prophet as well as the Christ and the Son of God.
  
  For what it's worth, Brueggemann and Sandy agree with me.
  

  riders1;758012 wrote:Jesus Christ the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow, God never changes, only our thoughts change

  I'm not sure what point you are trying to make here.
  

  riders1;758012 wrote:... you don't learn God in a seminary but through his continuing revelation, and for that he sent prophets and a way to test if they are false or true.

  You don't need seminary to know God, but it is INCREDIBLY helpful and healthy for learning God's Word, down to those things which one can learn for the sake of nothing other than knowing God's Word and world just a little bit better.
  
  And God has not continued revelation, unless you'd assert that the Bible is incomplete.
  

  riders1;758012 wrote:It doesn't come through the seminary and head knowledge by reading the bible like a newspaper, but through God's revealing himself to his chosen people.

  I have never gone to seminary, but I have yet to meet someone serious enough about their faith to invest time in seminary who reads the Bible like a newspaper. And contrary to what you've said, we are to love God with our heart, soul, mind, and strength. I've bolded the word "mind," because it seems like so many people forget that our thought process is as fallen as our moral compass, and that part of our command is to love God through the exercise of our minds, at whatever level that may be.
  
  Plus, I can know my wife with my mind as well as I can with other elements of my being. Ignoring what you call "head knowledge" would be equivalent to neglecting a beautiful, powerful gift from God, which he FULLY intended to be used to know him and his world better ... the mind.
  
  Or as John A. Hutchinson puts it, "Unthinking faith is a curious offering to be made to the creator of the human mind."
  
  One doesn't need to be a biblical scholar to know and love God, but I'd contend that one MUST strive for such in order to obey and seek God ("seek" in a literal sense).
  

  Skyhook79;758034 wrote:The Bible isn’t such a complex document that it requires years of formal education before you can begin to comprehend it. I’ve always believed the Bible was meant to be understood by any believer who can read and has a serious interest in knowing what it says.

  God's genius at work. It can be understood at such a simple level, but not even the most brilliant mind could understand it exhaustively ... and yet we strive on, having understood its most foundational message from the beginning of our faith, and yet never reaching a point of growth that leaves us incapable of further growing!
• DeyDurkie5

  

  if god created the world and people, why wouldn't he have his "son" 10,000+ years ago? He waited until 2000 years ago to produce his son? I'm amazed at how many intelligent people believe in this shit
• O-Trap

  

  DeyDurkie5;758563 wrote:if god created the world and people, why wouldn't he have his "son" 10,000+ years ago? He waited until 2000 years ago to produce his son? I'm amazed at how many intelligent people believe in this shit

  
  Why did I have a Diet Coke three hours ago, and not five?
  
  Don't get me wrong, there are serious questions that I can see legitimately used to doubt theism, but honestly, this would fall under the "grasping at straws" category.
• DeyDurkie5

  

  O-Trap;758571 wrote:Why did I have a Diet Coke three hours ago, and not five?
  
  Don't get me wrong, there are serious questions that I can see legitimately used to doubt theism, but honestly, this would fall under the "grasping at straws" category.

  
  I'm not trying to doubt it, that was a serious question...
• Y-Town Steelhound

  

  O-Trap;758571 wrote:Why did I have a Diet Coke three hours ago, and not five?
  
  Don't get me wrong, there are serious questions that I can see legitimately used to doubt theism, but honestly, this would fall under the "grasping at straws" category.

  
  Not at all, and as an example I would like to take a passage (ironically) from the musical Jesus Christ Superstar.
  
  "If you'd come today you could've reached the whole nation. Israel in 4 BC had no mass communication."
  
  Thoughts?
• jmog

  DeyDurkie5;758563 wrote:if god created the world and people, why wouldn't he have his "son" 10,000+ years ago? He waited until 2000 years ago to produce his son? I'm amazed at how many intelligent people believe in this shit

  
  The sad thing is I really think you thought this was a valid "proof" that God doesn't exist.
• jmog

  Y-Town Steelhound;758612 wrote:Not at all, and as an example I would like to take a passage (ironically) from the musical Jesus Christ Superstar.
  
  "If you'd come today you could've reached the whole nation. Israel in 4 BC had no mass communication."
  
  Thoughts?

  
  Actually he "had" to come when he did as the general time period was prophesied by Daniel over 400 years earlier. Now could have Daniel prophesied a much longer time frame? Sure but what does it really matter if he came 2000 years ago or 20 years ago.
  
  Jesus could go on live TV today perform a miracle and doubters just like those on this thread still would not believe. So your assertion that everyone would believe is naive at best.
• Y-Town Steelhound

  

  jmog;758659 wrote:Actually he "had" to come when he did as the general time period was prophesied by Daniel over 400 years earlier. Now could have Daniel prophesied a much longer time frame? Sure but what does it really matter if he came 2000 years ago or 20 years ago.
  
  Jesus could go on live TV today perform a miracle and doubters just like those on this thread still would not believe. So your assertion that everyone would believe is naive at best.

  
  Maybe, but there certainly would not have been as many doubters and his message would've certainly reached a greater number of people. Your assertion that Jesus' arrival in today's world would've been no different than his arrival 2000 years ago is INCREDIBLY naive. I think given the choice between seeing a miracle with my own eyes and having faith in a book written thousands of years ago, I and most people with even the most extreme amount of skepticism would choose the former.
  
  Also he didn't "have" to do anything. He's God, he writes the rules.
• Y-Town Steelhound

  

  FWIW, I'm not an atheist and certainly believe that God/Jesus could exist. Heck, I went to a Catholic school for 12 years. It's just that with so many contradictions, gray areas, and other religions I've determined that the universe is far too complex for me or any human to understand. Basically I subscribe to the church of "I don't and will never know".
  
  I think you can challenge the mind without compromising your faith. I certainly respect others' beliefs and at the very least I find the bible and religion in general to be a good moral compass for life/mechanism for coping with the fear of death.