Conversion after death

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Only, I'm not saying with certainty that these people did convert.

I don't know what happened to anyone's soul after death, so I don't condemn anyone to hell. I don't claim to have the fullness of truth and believe the fullness of truth will be made known to me after my death.

So, your analogy doesn't work. I'm not saying that I know for certain Buddha was saved and I'm not declaring Buddha to be a Christian. Is it possible? Yes, so Christians should stop damning people to hell.

I knew a girl who would not convert to Christianity, because she heard all these Christians saying people like her Father went to hell, because he committed suicide as an Atheist.

My goal in starting this thread is to get Christians to be open to other possibilities rather than jump to such a repulsive and offensive conclusion!

If Hell is part of the picture at all, then the conclusion will be repulsive and offensive.

 

[stvdv]

I didn't "take sides with the Christians." @PopeADope 's position is no less cruel than the mainstream Christian position; he isn't saying that it's wrong to torment non-Christians in Hell; he's saying that people who we think of as non-Christian are actually Christians now that they're dead, so it's acceptable not to torment them. It doesn't do anything to address the cruel, inhumane doctrine of Hell.

IOW: @PopeADope is still saying that atheists end up in Hell; he just thinks there are a lot fewer atheists. He's replacing threats of torture with defamation.

Implicit in what @PopeADope is saying is that there's something wrong with being an atheist: it's something God will "fix" after the person is dead. It's insulting and demeaning to all atheists, along with being disrespectful to every deceased non-Christian.

The fact that other Christians are no less insulting, demeaning and disrespectful in their own ways doesn't change this fact.

Thank you for explaining [you are sharper than I am, I really thought @PopeADope was not judgemental. My mistake]. I did see his religion is "amish taliban" and looking it up, it seemed extreme [so I did have a little doubt], but I was happy he seemed so tolerant [I did put in 1 extra line because of this doubt "You might even get infected by them and start critisizing back". But didn't check [were too many replies].

So thank you for correcting me. And if that is the case, then @PopeADope better follow his own advise "not critisizing".

Many people don't like Sai Baba. But I believe Him. And Sai Baba has declared that atheists have same chances as any religious person [because it's only about respect for creation], and that there even is a group in India practising this belief system. When I read this I was very happy. And when I flew back to Holland there was a beautiful woman sitting next to me, and we started talking and she said "I don't believe in God, our belief system is that we should be respectful towards other humans and all of creation". I like these coincidences. First time I heard about such a belief-system, and then a few days after, meeting someone. Needless to say, I liked the beautiful woman even more hearing this.

And according to Sai Baba Hell does not exist either. That's only a creation of humans in their mind. Makes sense to me. Smart plan to induce fear to control the people who could not read and earn money[that is a fact]. And when Christians want to believe Hell it's fine with me. But they have no right to tell me or others to goto hell. They can tell me that they themselves goto hell, that's fine for me. I won't stop them. Even wish them a good journey and plenty of Blessings [they definitely will need those]

So I am totally convinced that all humans have the same chance. No need to believe in God IMHO.

Now I really understand, you were quite upset with @PopeADope. I will read the post again, a bit more careful.

Love, Peace and Blessings
Namaste

 

[stvdv]

I'm trying to get Christians to stop condemning good people to Hell, and be open to other possibilities

I have a question PopeADope. I thought you were against Christians who tell non-Christians that they goto Hell. I thought that's great, same as I feel. But I got corrected, and was told that you don't believe atheists have a fair chance with their belief-system.

Better ask you directly. I don't like misunderstandings
Do you believe atheists have same chances as non-atheists? Or put it more simple: Will an atheist be judged negative because he doesn't believe in God? Or maybe even get a one-way ticket to Hell? Do you believe in Hell?

 

[Spiderman]

I have a question PopeADope. I thought you were against Christians who tell non-Christians that they goto Hell. I thought that's great, same as I feel. But I got corrected, and was told that you don't believe atheists have a fair chance with their belief-system.

Better ask you directly. I don't like misunderstandings
Do you believe atheists have same chances as non-atheists? Or put it more simple: Will an atheist be judged negative because he doesn't believe in God? Or maybe even get a one-way ticket to Hell? Do you believe in Hell?

I believe God is omnipotent and can rescue any soul from Hell if he so pleases. God can also change his mind. In scripture, Moses got God to change his mind and "repent of the evil he planned to do to Israel."

You have it all wrong mate! @9-10ths_Penguin has misjudged me. I think Atheists are not at fault for being Atheist. They don't know they are rejecting the truth, and are fully convinced that what they don't believe in is "falsehood". If an Atheist follows his conscience, and does what he believes to be right, I absolutely believe he will eventually make it to Heaven.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You have it all wrong mate! @9-10ths_Penguin has misjudged me. I think Atheists are not at fault for being Atheist. They don't know they are rejecting the truth, and are fully convinced that what they don't believe in is "falsehood".

You say that I've misunderstood you, but then you reinforce my opinion by saying things like "they don't know they are rejecting the truth."

If an Atheist follows his conscience, and does what he believes to be right, I absolutely believe he will eventually make it to Heaven.

... by eventually becoming Christian?

 

[Spiderman]

You say that I've misunderstood you, but then you reinforce my opinion by saying things like "they don't know they are rejecting the truth."


... by eventually becoming Christian?

I don't claim to have all the answers. Yes, if Christianity has the truth, then I believe Buddha (and possibly you) would accept Jesus as Lord and savior who died to atone for your sins, if you knew that was the truth...problem is, you don't know that is the truth, and your conscience and ability to reason tells you that it is falsehood, so, you don't know you are rejecting the truth...Jesus said of the Pharisees, "if they did not know, they would not have sin". He also forgave those who crucified him, saying, "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do".

I'm not declaring with certainty that I have the truth, and you don't. I think we both have pieces of the truth, combined with errors, and confusion, and that both of us will eventually be enlightened to know for certainty what the truth is. Some of this enlightenment will come after death (my personal belief).

So, do I believe you as an Atheist have some errors? Yes, personally, but I believe I have much confusion, faults, sins, and errors as well, so I don't condemn you!

 

[stvdv]

If an Atheist follows his conscience, and does what he believes to be right, I absolutely believe he will eventually make it to Heaven.

I am glad I asked you to explain. This sounds much better than a one-way ticket to hell. I read Bahai and understood from Bahaullah that all religions are a path to God. Then I asked a dutch Bahai and he said "Yes all religions lead to God................................but they have to accept Bahai to get to the final destination". That felt very bad. So I'm glad you don't declare with certainty that you have the truth. And nice to say we all have pieces of the truth. That feels much more truth, considering that all is consciousness. Maybe even more accurate "we all are pieces of the truth", but only valid if we really know "who am I".

I'm not declaring with certainty that I have the truth, and you don't. I think we both have pieces of the truth, combined with errors, and confusion, and that both of us will eventually be enlightened to know for certainty what the truth is. Some of this enlightenment will come after death (my personal belief)..

When I look at the milky way then I realize knowing the Truth is impossible IMHO. I can't even see the end of the milky way, how then knowing the truth. But heh, miracles do happen, so I also can't say it's impossible. 1 Truth I know "I know almost nothing in this huge universe". Would be a nice bonus "some enlightenment will come after death".

So, do I believe you as an Atheist have some errors? Yes, personally, but I believe I have much confusion, faults, sins, and errors as well, so I don't condemn you! .

Thank you. That sounds friendly.
Personally I am not convinced there is a heaven after we die. If God exists then for sure there is no Hell [because God is said to be Unconditional Love, so Hell must be a concoction of a human mind IMHO]. What I do know is that "here and now" heaven can be experienced. So I rather focus on "now" and not on "past" or "future".

 

[shunyadragon]

Thank you. That wasn't so hard, then, was it?

You claimed to have rad and know the Catechism, and yet you were ignorant of this most important section concerning the belief of the Roman Church. Why did you not read this yourself?????

Like pulling hen's teeth. Again, I'm not Catholic, but doesn't the argument that Catholics have made here, complete with their own quotes from the catechism, etc., mean anything? These are, after all, their beliefs.

Individuals can believe anything they choose. It is not practical for me to debate individual 'personal' beliefs, but I can debate what the Roman Church believes and teaches in the Catechism.

No, attempts to selective cite the Catechism to justify an agenda are just not plain honest. The previous citations do not support an alternative position on the Roman Church. The citations provided from the Bible that the Roman Church rely on for their beliefs were specific, and in agreement with my reference,

Oh....and you seem to have things a bit backward here. The catechism does not dictate what the Roman Catholic church teaches. The Roman Catholic Church dictates what is in the catechism. Oh...and again...Catholics believe what THEY say they do. Not what you say they do...or what I say they do.

Unfortunately your still back peddling and side stepping the facts of what the Roman Church teaches to the faithful through the catechism. The Catechism teaches what the Roman Church believes specifically as cites concerning the Doctrine and Dogma. There are footnotes and references concerning the context in the Bible and the history of the development of the Catechism.

 

[shunyadragon]

I didn't "take sides with the Christians." @PopeADope 's position is no less cruel than the mainstream Christian position; he isn't saying that it's wrong to torment non-Christians in Hell; he's saying that people who we think of as non-Christian are actually Christians now that they're dead, so it's acceptable not to torment them. It doesn't do anything to address the cruel, inhumane doctrine of Hell.

IOW: @PopeADope is still saying that atheists end up in Hell; he just thinks there are a lot fewer atheists. He's replacing threats of torture with defamation.

Implicit in what @PopeADope is saying is that there's something wrong with being an atheist: it's something God will "fix" after the person is dead. It's insulting and demeaning to all atheists, along with being disrespectful to every deceased non-Christian.

The fact that other Christians are no less insulting, demeaning and disrespectful in their own ways doesn't change this fact.

Its all nice soft fuzzy tripping through the Butter Cups, Daisies and Daffy dills, and I have no problem with those who want to believe in milk toast cleansed and edited Christianity to make it friendly and comfortable, but I will take them to task when they misrepresent the teachings of the Roman Church to justify their agenda.

 

[shunyadragon]

You still have no ability to reason.

You are cherry picking the Catechism.

Do I have the fullness of truth? NO! There is much that I am confused about. My defects of character will be removed by my creator after death, in purgatory...the fullness of truth and understanding will be revealed to me AFTER DEATH!

Did Buddha die accepting what is necessary to believe to have eternal life? No! Does the Church say that that necessarily condemns someone to hell? No! That leaves one possibility! Something took place between him and God, after the naked eye would consider him "dead".

Let me ask you, does the Church rule out the possibility of salvation for someone who has died as an atheist? No! AND YOU KNOW THAT IS TRUE! That means, there would only be one option, the person would have to have the grace and knowledge necessary for salvation infused into their soul, when all the external evidence suggests that they died without the necessary faith to be saved.

The Church teaches that we don't know with certainty that any soul is in Hell.

I can't believe I'm still having this conversation with you, but at least finally you provided Catechism verses, and I thank you for that!

You have failed to respond. Immediately at the moment of death is indeed AFTER DEATH when judgement is passed.

Again . . .

From: Catechism of the Catholic Church - PART 1 SECTION 2 CHAPTER 3 ARTICLE 12

I. THE PARTICULAR JUDGMENT

1021 Death puts an end to human life as the time open to either accepting or rejecting the divine grace manifested in Christ.592 The New Testament speaks of judgment primarily in its aspect of the final encounter with Christ in his second coming, but also repeatedly affirms that each will be rewarded immediately after death in accordance with his works and faith. The parable of the poor man Lazarus and the words of Christ on the cross to the good thief, as well as other New Testament texts speak of a final destiny of the soul--a destiny which can be different for some and for others.593

1022 Each man receives his eternal retribution in his immortal soul at the very moment of his death, in a particular judgment that refers his life to Christ: either entrance into the blessedness of heaven-through a purification594 or immediately,595 -- or immediate and everlasting damnation.596

Wishful fanciful thinking will not get the Roman Church to change what the Catechism clearly teaches.

 

[dianaiad]

You claimed to have rad and know the Catechism, and yet you were ignorant of this most important section concerning the belief of the Roman Church. Why did you not read this yourself?????

Not my job.

the Catechism is a rather large document (or as I read it, a rather large site). it is YOUR job, as the one making the claim, to give us chapter and verse, NOT mine to memorize a document that doesn't reflect my own beliefs to try to find something that supports your ideas.

This entire conversation with you, for me, has been about 'burden of proof.' I frankly don't care about the specific teachings. I HAVE spoken to Catholics, including priests and learned people, and I accept what they tell me about their beliefs. Those things do not agree with what you have said here. It doesn't matter to ME either way. What matters to me is the sheer effrontery of your insistence that we accept your word for something, and that you refused to support your own claims, but rather insisted that it was OUR job to do your work for you. Ain't happening.

Individuals can believe anything they choose. It is not practical for me to debate individual 'personal' beliefs, but I can debate what the Roman Church believes and teaches in the Catechism.

Yes. you can debate whatever you want to. However, when you start telling Catholics what they REALLY believe because YOUR interpretation of the catechism is different from theirs, I lose interest. That's arrogance and hubris beyond what I want to deal with.

 

[shunyadragon]

Not my job.

You made the claim that you had read and know the Catechism and claimed what I considered as false and failed to back it up.

When you and @PopeADope failed to properly cite the Catechism, which is easy on the internet, I provided the proper reference that describes the teaching of the Roman Church as it is and not how @PopeADope, you nor I want it to be.

the Catechism is a rather large document (or as I read it, a rather large site). it is YOUR job, as the one making the claim, to give us chapter and verse, NOT mine to memorize a document that doesn't reflect my own beliefs to try to find something that supports your ideas.

Actually, not it is not a rather large document and I gave the key words, including the Latin, for you to make an easy search on the internet.

Yes. you can debate whatever you want to. However, when you start telling Catholics what they REALLY believe because YOUR interpretation of the catechism is different from theirs, I lose interest. That's arrogance and hubris beyond what I want to deal with.

I HAVE NEVER TOLD CATHOLICS WHAT THEY MUST BELIEVE AS INDIVIDUALS. Please cite me properly. I have always argued what does the Roman Church teach to the faithful in the Catechism.

I did not provide my interpretation. I simply provided a word for word literal citation of the belief as specifically described in the Catechism.

 

[dianaiad]

You made the claim that you had read and know the Catechism and claimed what I considered as false and failed to back it up.

When you and @PopeADope failed to properly cite the Catechism, which is easy on the internet, I provided the proper reference that describes the teaching of the Roman Church as it is and not how @PopeADope, you nor I want it to be.

Actually, not it is not a rather large document and I gave the key words, including the Latin, for you to make an easy search on the internet.

You still don't get it.

NOT OUR JOB.

I've read the Congressional Record, too (well, skimmed through a lot of it) but if someone claimed that the CR had a specific section in it that supports his point, it's STILL not my job to go find that section. It is the job of the claimant.

Always.

it's not up to us to do word searches or google searches. your claim. Your job.

Every.

Single.

Time.

 

[shunyadragon]

You still don't get it.

NOT OUR JOB.

I've read the Congressional Record, too (well, skimmed through a lot of it) but if someone claimed that the CR had a specific section in it that supports his point, it's STILL not my job to go find that section. It is the job of the claimant.

Always.

it's not up to us to do word searches or google searches. your claim. Your job.

Every.

Single.

Time.

I did that and proved my claims.

 

[Spiderman]

I did that and proved my claims.

No you didn't prove anything...Buddha died, never accepting any Doctrines that are necessary for the soul to be saved...Yet the Church declares that people like him who followed their conscience and the law of charity can get to Heaven....I'm going to explain this to you like you are a child, because you can't apparently identify what is obvious....Buddha (and whoever) lives a charitable, meek, humble, virtuous life...He dies, never hearing what is necessary for salvation (through no fault of his own)...The Church says he could still be in Heaven...That leaves the question, well, if he is in Heaven does he know the truth?...the answer is: of course! Well, he never learned the truth while he was alive...hmmm...let's use some common friggin sense...there is one single option here...the truth was presented to him after his life on earth ended...THERE IS NOT ANOTHER OPTION! ARGUING WITH YOU IS POINTLESS BECAUSE YOU REFUSE TO IDENTIFY WHAT IS OBVIOUS!

I seriously cannot believe I'm still having this conversation with you!

 

[shunyadragon]

I am glad I asked you to explain. This sounds much better than a one-way ticket to hell. I read Bahai and understood from Bahaullah that all religions are a path to God. Then I asked a dutch Bahai and he said "Yes all religions lead to God................................but they have to accept Bahai to get to the final destination". That felt very bad. So I'm glad you don't declare with certainty that you have the truth. And nice to say we all have pieces of the truth. That feels much more truth, considering that all is consciousness. Maybe even more accurate "we all are pieces of the truth", but only valid if we really know "who am I".

Asking a Dutch Baha'i who gives his opinion, "Yes all religions lead to God................................but they have to accept Baha'i to get to the final destination," does not represent the teachings of the Baha'i Faith.

We need to discuss this using Baha'i references to understand this issue in better perspective.

 

[shunyadragon]

No you didn't prove anything...Buddha died, never accepting any Doctrines that are necessary for the soul to be saved...Yet the Church declares that people like him who followed their conscience and the law of charity can get to Heaven....I'm going to explain this to you like you are a child, because you can't apparently identify what is obvious....Buddha (and whoever) lives a charitable, meek, humble, virtuous life...He dies, never hearing what is necessary for salvation (through no fault of his own)...The Church says he could still be in Heaven...That leaves the question, well, if he is in Heaven does he know the truth?...the answer is: of course! Well, he never learned the truth while he was alive...hmmm...let's use some common friggin sense...there is one single option here...the truth was presented to him after his life on earth ended...THERE IS NOT ANOTHER OPTION! ARGUING WITH YOU IS POINTLESS BECAUSE YOU REFUSE TO IDENTIFY WHAT IS OBVIOUS!

I seriously cannot believe I'm still having this conversation with you!

Putting things in bold red and shouting from the roof stops is meaningless. This is of course what you believe, and you can start your own church or join the Unitarians.

I gave the key reference that documents my view from the Catechism concerning what the Roman Church teaches, and the bottom line is you have failed to coherently respond.

 

[dianaiad]

I did that and proved my claims.

I wouldn't say 'proven,' myself, but you FINALLY supported them. Thank you. Now why did it take you so long and why did you have to lay on so many insults before you did so?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I don't claim to have all the answers. Yes, if Christianity has the truth, then I believe Buddha (and possibly you) would accept Jesus as Lord and savior who died to atone for your sins, if you knew that was the truth...problem is, you don't know that is the truth, and your conscience and ability to reason tells you that it is falsehood, so, you don't know you are rejecting the truth...Jesus said of the Pharisees, "if they did not know, they would not have sin". He also forgave those who crucified him, saying, "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do".

You say that you don't have all the answers, but you keep on making absolutist statements. Which should I go by: what you're actually saying or how you describe what you're saying?

I'm not declaring with certainty that I have the truth, and you don't.

When you describe our difference of opinion about what happens after we die by saying "you don't know you're rejecting the truth," it sure seems like you're declaring with certainty. You didn't leave much wiggle room for being wrong.

I think we both have pieces of the truth, combined with errors, and confusion, and that both of us will eventually be enlightened to know for certainty what the truth is. Some of this enlightenment will come after death (my personal belief).

So, do I believe you as an Atheist have some errors? Yes, personally, but I believe I have much confusion, faults, sins, and errors as well, so I don't condemn you!

But on the particular point we're discussing, you've decided I'm wrong, no?

 

[Spiderman]

You say that you don't have all the answers, but you keep on making absolutist statements. Which should I go by: what you're actually saying or how you describe what you're saying?


When you describe our difference of opinion about what happens after we die by saying "you don't know you're rejecting the truth," it sure seems like you're declaring with certainty. You didn't leave much wiggle room for being wrong.


But on the particular point we're discussing, you've decided I'm wrong, no?

I believe it is entirely possible that I myself embrace as many errors and falsehoods as you...in the eyes of Christian Theology, yes, your rejection of Christ is wrong...it was people of Christian theology that I was trying to reach with this thread...So, I was trying to create the possibility of salvation for Atheists like Buddha, who follow their conscience and the golden rule, so that Christians would stop condemning people to Hell.

Yet, I'm not saying an atheist has a more screwd up rule of life they live by than I do. There are atheists who possess more courage, charity, meekness, humility, hope, optimism, peace, and the virtues I cherish, than I do, therefore, I can't fault someone who outdoes me in virtue. There is no black and white answer.