What Services Does A Pediatric Dentist...
Business & Finance1 min ago
hypothetically.........
44 Answers
If i threw a grenade and managed to take out an athiest, 4 terrorists a paedophile a wife beater but then accidentially it also killed a child as well would i get into heaven?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by The Sherman. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Hypothetically, to get into heaven you would presumably need to be repentant, but more importantly, you would also need to worship God unreservedly. Repentance alone wouldn't be enough. Apparently, God's own glorification is top of his agenda, so, since you don't worship him, I'd say no, you wouldn't get into heaven - under any circumstances. He doesn't love unconditionally.
Jesus came to save sinners. God doesn't want anyone to perish in hell. He is willing to forgive if they will turn away from their sins and follow His will. The chances are that the atheist, the terrorists, the paedophile, the wife beater and child will also be there, so it may not be as heavenly as you hope.
In two parts really (3 if you count the one where all the relatives turn up, but I digress). Part 1, is the general doo-dah's, you know being good and stuff, all the bits �n� bobs like� ethics, morals, life-style, how we are to behave etcetera. The second part will be specific to you, and that Sherman, is for you to determine� if you want to go to heaven that is.
One thing you haven�t really been clear on in your hypothetical situation, is why you chose to throw the grenade. Was it an act of religious and moral zealousness (rid the world of an atheist etc�)? Or were you heroically throwing it away from a group of Roman Catholic nuns or school children that might have been killed had you not thrown it? What were the intentions in your heart? What were you thinking?
One thing you haven�t really been clear on in your hypothetical situation, is why you chose to throw the grenade. Was it an act of religious and moral zealousness (rid the world of an atheist etc�)? Or were you heroically throwing it away from a group of Roman Catholic nuns or school children that might have been killed had you not thrown it? What were the intentions in your heart? What were you thinking?
I am astonished that naomi had to go to the trouble of pointing out to The Sherman that you cannot be an atheist and be open-minded about such things, when we have been through all this before on another thread. Plainly The Sherman doesn't know what an atheist is. (And why can he still not spell it having seen it correctly spelled dozens of times?)
I am now even more astonished to see naomi retracting!
I am now even more astonished to see naomi retracting!
So now chakka your saying beyond doubt that it is not possible for there to be a god?
You have documented evidence that even if God didnt start the big bang or had anything else to do with the creation of humanity that somewhere somehow there is definately no god?
If you can show me that for certain then i'll apologise for everything i've said on the subject.
You have documented evidence that even if God didnt start the big bang or had anything else to do with the creation of humanity that somewhere somehow there is definately no god?
If you can show me that for certain then i'll apologise for everything i've said on the subject.
Chakka, I didn't retract. I simply said I understood what Sherman was saying - and I did. The dictionary definition of an atheist is one who denies categorically the existence of God, or words to that effect. Hence, if denial is absolute, then there can be no 'ifs and buts'. Sherman is quite right in saying that an atheist is just as dogmatic as a religious person. He is. No true atheist would ever consider - even from a scientific viewpoint - the vaguest possibility that God exists, and that�s because he is totally convinced in his conviction and can�t be budged, just a the religious among us can�t be budged from theirs. From what Sherman has said, I would call him an agnostic (sorry Sherman), but if he wants to call himself an atheist, and he�s adamant, then there's no point in arguing about it. It�s like those who say they�re Christian and yet follow the teachings of St Paul. I wouldn�t call them Christians - to my mind they�re a very long way from what I see as Christianity - but if they prefer to see varying shades in their particular belief, that�s their choice. It doesn�t make them right though.
The Sherman, you persist in misunderstanding what an atheist is.
In general your idea that you can be an atheist while allowing the possibilty of a God is like saying that you don't believe in Santa while allowing the possibility that your Christmas presents might have been delivered down the chimney by a nice chap in a white beard and a red cloak.
This is what we have:
A theist is one who believes wholeheartedly in God.
An agnostic is one who does not so believe but admits that God might exist.
These two are so related in their acceptance of the possibility of a supernatural being that they are very close; they sit next to each other, cheek-by-jowl, on the intellectual bench.
A million miles away, across an intellectual gulf, is the atheist , who firmly, unequivocally, unreservedly, categorically dismisses the idea of God as absurd. He may one day, by some sort of celestian decree, be proved wrong, but that is what he is.
Since, The Sherman, you obviously do not belong to this latter category you are not, by definition, an atheist.
You are just not qualified to belong to our club.
I cannot explain it any more clearly than that.
In general your idea that you can be an atheist while allowing the possibilty of a God is like saying that you don't believe in Santa while allowing the possibility that your Christmas presents might have been delivered down the chimney by a nice chap in a white beard and a red cloak.
This is what we have:
A theist is one who believes wholeheartedly in God.
An agnostic is one who does not so believe but admits that God might exist.
These two are so related in their acceptance of the possibility of a supernatural being that they are very close; they sit next to each other, cheek-by-jowl, on the intellectual bench.
A million miles away, across an intellectual gulf, is the atheist , who firmly, unequivocally, unreservedly, categorically dismisses the idea of God as absurd. He may one day, by some sort of celestian decree, be proved wrong, but that is what he is.
Since, The Sherman, you obviously do not belong to this latter category you are not, by definition, an atheist.
You are just not qualified to belong to our club.
I cannot explain it any more clearly than that.
And yes, naomi, that is what we are. The difference between us atheists and dogmatic
religionists (or timid sitters on the fence) is that we have logic, reason and argument on our side.
Theists and agnostics can offer nothing but belief or half-heartedly belief. Nothing more.
Unless, of course, you, Sherman, Octavius, Theland. Clanad and all the other believers and half-believers on this site can show otherwise.
You have never managed it so far.
religionists (or timid sitters on the fence) is that we have logic, reason and argument on our side.
Theists and agnostics can offer nothing but belief or half-heartedly belief. Nothing more.
Unless, of course, you, Sherman, Octavius, Theland. Clanad and all the other believers and half-believers on this site can show otherwise.
You have never managed it so far.
Chakka, I�m aware that, for good reason, I put the case for atheists rather basically, but nevertheless I thought quite graphically - but apparently not.
As for lumping me in with believers and half-believers in a supernatural (non)entity that answers prayers, demands unwarranted adoration, and metes out punishment to humanity simply for the crime of being human, coming from you that not only disappoints me greatly - it insults me. I�m not quite sure whether the fault lies in my communication skills, or in your powers of comprehension, but clearly something is amiss.
As for lumping me in with believers and half-believers in a supernatural (non)entity that answers prayers, demands unwarranted adoration, and metes out punishment to humanity simply for the crime of being human, coming from you that not only disappoints me greatly - it insults me. I�m not quite sure whether the fault lies in my communication skills, or in your powers of comprehension, but clearly something is amiss.
