Can an Atheist get into heaven

[VallartaPete]

Now clearly I am an Atheist but I am one who says I could be wrong ... .001% chance of it BUT it is not a chance worth getting anyones panties in a bunch over.

I do however get into discussion on FB with hard nosed Christians about that .001% chance.

In my constant web search to biblical challenges I make or receive I once came upon a bible passage regarding Atheists being able to get into heaven if such a place did exist and we are all wrong. The passage was based around the premise that so long as you never worshiped the beast (devil) or prayed to it or followed its lead then you would be allowed in regardless of your lack of worship of God.

Not that it matters to me because I feel that if I am wrong and someone would not let me in because I did not kiss his ass and beg for mercy then I would not want in anyhow. I would rather burn in a hell then spend eternity with someone that stuck-up and self-centered.

The question is more for me to throw it back at them as to defer the argument. And maybe get under their skin.

Peter Hardy aka VallartaPete

[Ultima22689]

Can you point out that bible passage? I would love to see it.

[VallartaPete]

Oh ya that was really my question  .... Doh .... I had set the page aside but then accidentally closed it never to find again.

I really want it back ...

[Jac3510]

The passage you are referring to is found in Revelation 14:9-12

9A third angel followed them and said in a loud voice: "If anyone worships the beast and his image and receives his mark on the forehead or on the hand, 10he, too, will drink of the wine of God's fury, which has been poured full strength into the cup of his wrath. He will be tormented with burning sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and of the Lamb. 11And the smoke of their torment rises for ever and ever. There is no rest day or night for those who worship the beast and his image, or for anyone who receives the mark of his name." 12This calls for patient endurance on the part of the saints who obey God's commandments and remain faithful to Jesus.

As you can see, this says that anyone who worships the beast will be wind up in Hell, no ifs, ands, or buts about it. It does not say that those who do not worship the beast, though, will go to Heaven.

As far as whether or not an atheist can go to heaven, I believe they can, though I am in the minority on the matter. I believe the Bible teaches that once a person is saved, their salvation can never be lost. Consider 2 Tim. 2:11-13

11Here is a trustworthy saying: If we died with him, we will also live with him; 12if we endure, we will also reign with him. If we disown him, he will also disown us; 13if we are faithless, he will remain faithful, for he cannot disown himself.

Notice that if we are faithless--if we don't have faith--He will still be faithful in His promise to save us. Further, John 3:16 says that the one who believes will never perish but has everlasting life. If I can lose my salvation, then this verse lies, because then I would perish and it would turn out that my life wasn't everlasting in the first place.

Those who have trusted Jesus Christ and Jesus Christ alone for their salvation can know for 100% sure that they are saved. That doesn't mean that if you were baptized as a child you can know you were saved. It doesn't mean that if you walked an aisle or raised your hand or went to church or cried because you did something wrong then you can know you are saved. It says that if at any point in your life you put your faith in Jesus Christ to save you, that you threw yourself on His mercy and grace, completely apart from any works on your own, then you were saved then and even are today, even if you later went on to become an atheist.

We are saved through our faith, not through our works. Once you are saved, you are just that: saved. God doesn't kick you out of the lifeboat back into the water and ask you to "get saved again."

My recommendation, then, is to put your faith in Jesus. He promised that if you trust Him then He would raise you on the last day into everlasting life (John 6:40; 11:24-27). Those who don't are already condemned (John 3:18). The question is really very simple. Did Jesus tell the truth, or did He lie? I think He told the truth, and so long as He is right, I've no doubt where I'm going to spend eternity, and that, regardless of what I end up doing in the future--including if I were to fall into disbelief.

[Sophus]

How does that work with "he will disown us" though? It never specifically refers to what god is being faithful about. Plus, in what context is faithfully really being used. It's a word of many meanings.

[Asmodean]

CAN an atheist get to heaven..?

No. Why? Because there is no such thing based on the evidence at hand.

COULD an atheist get to heaven if there was one..?

Yes if that atheist met the minimum entry requirements.

[Jac3510]

How does that work with "he will disown us" though? It never specifically refers to what god is being faithful about. Plus, in what context is faithfully really being used. It's a word of many meanings.

The word "disown" is better translated "deny." The idea is in direct response opposition to enduring and reigning. It is fairly well established in Christian doctrine that those who are faithful will be rewarded in heaven moreso than those who are not. Thus, those who endure reign; those who do not endure, but deny Him, will be denied by Jesus, not of their salvation, but of their right to rule with Him. This is clarified in the final clause, that even if we are faithless (that is, we go on to deny Him), He Himself is not faithless, but faithful. Faithful to what? To the promise to save us (John 3:16, etc.), and why, because if He went back on His word like we do, then He would be denying Himself, which He cannot do. There is much more we could say about the saying, but I think this answers your question directly enough.

[Asmodean]

The word "disown" is better translated "deny."

So the Bookâ,,¢ is poorly translated..? And yet people bother to read it as factual?

Why?

In its original language, does it say "disown" or "deny"? Any one knows?

[Sophus]

We're mixing and matching meanings of the words "faith" and "deny". It's totally different to deny the existence of something than it is to say, deny someone friendship, just as it's completely different to faith in unicorns than it is to have faith in your wife.

[DropLogic]

Knowing how the god of the bible behaves...would you really want to go to his house for all eternity?  Personally it sounds like hell.

[Tanker]

Why would you want to go to the Christian heaven? It's full of self rightious pricks and nobody fun or interesting ever gets in.

[PoopShoot]

My biggest problem with the whole thing is that Jac is saying I'm going to heaven, but with his views, that would be more of a punishment than hell.

[Jac3510]

The word "disown" is better translated "deny."

So the Bookâ,,¢ is poorly translated..? And yet people bother to read it as factual?

Why?

In its original language, does it say "disown" or "deny"? Any one knows?

Most people read it according to a translation because they don't take they time, or were never taught, to read Greek and Hebrew. It's a sad state of affairs, I think. I don't blame non-Christians for not taking the time necessary to learn the languages, but Christians, especially Christian parents, have absolutely no excuse. Those who raise their children in Christian homes ought to either teach their children Greek and Hebrew, or they ought to make sure their children are taught it by someone who knows it.

For my own part, I read NT in Greek and the OT in Hebrew. I refer to English translations from time to time. I view them primarily as commentary, but anyone who is bilingual will tell you that translation from one language into another is never perfect. To give you only two examples:

1. The NIV renders 1 John 2:5, "But if anyone obeys his word, God's love is truly made complete in him." The NASB renders it, "but whoever keeps His word, in him the love of God has truly been perfected."

We can see two issues in these translations. First, look at the phrase "God's love" and "love of God." This is a classic problem with translation. The Greek is agape tou theou (αγαπη Ï,,οÏ... θεοÏ...). Agape refers to "love." Theou is a genitive word meaning "God," and we are taught in first year Greek to look at genitives as showing possession, which is true from a simplistic point of view, and so it is translated "of God." So we see the reasoning behind the NASB's very literal rendering, and even why the NIV treated it like it does, putting in in easier English. The problem is that the genitive can express a lot more than just possession. I'll spare you the literally dozens of categories it could be, but two in particular come up in this verse. It could be an objective or a subjective genitive. In other words, is the idea:

"The love that belongs to God" (i.e., "God's love") OR "My love for God"

We have this same issue in English. If I say "the love of a women," am I talking about the way a woman loves or the love a person may have for a woman? Context decides, and the way you interpret that is very important. As a matter of fact, I think the NIV has it wrong here, and that we are not talking about the love that belongs to God, but rather our love for God.

Second, look at "obey" in the NIV vs. "keep" in the NASB. Here we are translating the word tereo (Ï,,ηρέω, or in the actual text, inflected, Ï,,ηρῇ). It's basic meaning is to guard or to watch over, but it's semantic range also includes obeying.  I think John has both meanings in view as he very much likes to choose words that can have a double meaning, both of which apply, but the point is that, in English, we either have to choose one meaning or the other. We don't have a word that means both (and for what it is worth, this fits fantastically into Hebrew thought, because the Hebrew word shamar has the same range of meaning: that is, it can mean both keeping or obeying - John was expressing here a very Jewish, Old Testament idea!).

All this is just to demonstrate that translation is always imperfect. With that said, English translations are hardly bad. I usually compare then to a nine inch black and white screen to a fifty-two inch high definition. The picture is the same, but the one is just contains a much, much deeper level of clarity. In any case, when we are looking at a passage, we should always compare multiple translations if we are using the English Bible, for the simple reason that no translation can get everything. Different translations have different philosophies (i.e., formal equivalence vs. dynamic equivalence) and, I am very sad to admit, profit is an issue. Publishers are loathe to translate popular verses differently than they have always been read, even if modern scholarship challenges the traditional reading. To take but one example of that, John 3:16 usually opens up in most translations as "For God so loved the world . . ." which was perfectly appropriate in Victorian English. But the word "so" has changed meaning so that we read it as if it means, "For God loved the word so much that . . ." In fact, a better translation recognizing the way English is used today is, "For this is the way God loved the world:" If you look at the traditional rendering with that idea in mind, you can see how that idea could well be expressed.

So, a long answer I know, but that's why I bother to read it as factual. Or, better, why mistranslations don't bother me in terms of factuality. It's just the nature of translation from one language to another. The Bible just wasn't written in English.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We're mixing and matching meanings of the words "faith" and "deny". It's totally different to deny the existence of something than it is to say, deny someone friendship, just as it's completely different to faith in unicorns than it is to have faith in your wife.

Sure, in English, but the English isn't what is in question here. The issue is what the Greek says. The English is only important to the degree that it properly represents the Greek.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why would you want to go to the Christian heaven? It's full of self rightious pricks and nobody fun or interesting ever gets in.

I'm sure we can think of several reasons. I like the idea of permanent bliss much more than eternal torture. More philosophically, the idea of perfect goodness being expressed in everything is something I look forward to, whereas the complete negation of any goodness is something I would dread most deeply. Beyond that are the obvious theological reasons - I could want nothing more than to spend eternity with a God who did the work for me , as in Christianity, rather than asked me to do the work for Him, as in most religions. As a father myself, I can relate to that. Then there's the basic gratitude of saving me from my sin. Then there's the fact of being able to fully experience what I was actually designed for. Thump once pointed out that God knows us better than we know ourselves. I agree with him there, and if God knows me better than I know me, then He knows what will make me happy far more than I do. I'm looking forward to what He has in store.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My biggest problem with the whole thing is that Jac is saying I'm going to heaven, but with his views, that would be more of a punishment than hell.

I hope you do wind up in heaven, sir. I hope you did believe the Gospel earlier in life, because if you did, you are as heaven bound as I am. And when we are both standing in glory, you'll be absolutely overjoyed and relieved that you are not suffering the same fate as those in Hell, as will I be. And we'll both be praising and thanking God for saving us from such terrible consequences.

[PoopShoot]

My biggest problem with the whole thing is that Jac is saying I'm going to heaven, but with his views, that would be more of a punishment than hell.

I hope you do wind up in heaven, sir. I hope you did believe the Gospel earlier in life, because if you did, you are as heaven bound as I am. And when we are both standing in glory, you'll be absolutely overjoyed and relieved that you are not suffering the same fate as those in Hell, as will I be. And we'll both be praising and thanking God for saving us from such terrible consequences.

Given the cross section I've met of each location's probable population, I'll take my chances in hell.  I don't really have a problem with who god supposedly is, but his fan-club is really starting to piss me off.

[Jac3510]

Sure, PS. You'd agree with Ghandi, who as you know said, "I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ." The good news is that Christians will be raised, the same as you (assuming, again, that you believed the Gospel), with a body like Christ's, meaning that in heaven they will be like Him. That expression of pure goodness will be then what it ought to be now and very few actually even give a real attempt and trying today.