Board index ‹ Heaven and Hell

[Turtle]

What happens to people who never got the chance to learn about god.

What if some baby, incapable of even grasping basic language, does for some reason, does it go to hell for not accepting Jesus. What if someone grows up without any interaction with a Christian and never learns of God what happens to them.

[jimwalton]

The Bible isn't explicit about such things, but the clues it gives us lets us know that God will be perfectly fair about how He deals with them.

Romans 5.13 says people who lived before the law will have a different standard of accountability before God. Deuteronomy 1.37-40 says that those too young to be held accountable are not held accountable in the same way as those who were in a position to know.

It seems like possibly you fear that if God just ignorantly sends people to hell for not knowing Jesus, that just wouldn't be fair. Here's the point the Bible makes, and on this you can hang your hat: The Bible tells us that God is perfectly fair, that He takes all kinds of things into account (access to information, moral state, environment, motives, etc.), and since He knows everything, He will make the absolute right decision and be perfectly fair with everyone.

A FAR more important question is about you in particular. Since you HAVE heard, and have at least some knowledge of Christianity and God, the real question is what happens to YOU.

[Mad Hunter]

I’m not OP, but as a former Christian I got to a point where for my own sanity I had to accept that whatever happens to me is entirely up to God (if there still is one) - not me.

I think it is foolish and perhaps even narcissistic to assume that we petty humans can control the situation by manipulating, negotiating, or sweet talking God into getting us off the hook.

God is in control (is He not?). If sin is as deadly serious as we are to believe, it seems almost insulting to God’s character and integrity to expect that He should save us merely because we say we’re sorry. As an example - a pedophile can cry real tears and say he’s sorry and beg for forgiveness from the court all he wants - but that doesn’t make it right.

I got to a point a long time ago that I decided to stop running around in endless theological circles and just accept that the Christian God (if He exists) is in control and knows my heart even better than I ever will. If that means I go to hell, it would be either arrogant or futile on my part to complain about it. Of course I wouldn’t want to go to hell but I’m not going to delude myself into thinking if I play all the right mental games and believe all the right things then I can get myself saved. Either salvation comes entirely from God OR we have to admit that man’s own efforts DO play a role in salvation (ie it is not God alone that saves)

[jimwalton]

I obviously don't know what happened to you, why you feel the way you do, and what motivated you to change your position. It sounds like it was somewhat negative, so I'm sorry you had to go through something apparently quite taxing for you.

> as a former Christian I got to a point where for my own sanity I had to accept that whatever happens to me is entirely up to God (if there still is one) - not me.

You obviously feel this way because of a negative experience, but, being formerly a Christian, you must know this is not what the Bible teaches. God forces no one to reject him, nor does (or can) He force anyone to accept Him. If salvation is not by your free response, then God is arbitrary, and therefore not God (a self-contradictory situation, and therefore impossible). What happens to you is up to you. That's the only way there can be such a thing as justice. If God is an unjust dictator, then God is not God (again).

> I think it is foolish and perhaps even narcissistic to assume that we petty humans can control the situation by manipulating, negotiating, or sweet talking God into getting us off the hook.

That's because the Bible makes no reference to any effectiveness of manipulating, negotiation, or sweet-talking God into getting us off the hook. Maybe you're just being cavalier, but if you're at all serious, then you have completely misunderstood the Bible. Repentance is a genuine self-identification of who we really are, a spiritually-honest recognition of one's situation, and a sincere turning away from that and towards God. Manipulation, negotiating, or sweet talking don't (and can't) possibly have anything to do with it. This assumes God is either ignorant, soft and pliable, or unjust. It's a very small and inaccurate picture of God.

> God is in control (is He not?).

I have never been of the persuasion that God is in control. To me it's a wildly misleading concept. If it is so, then God is responsible for sin, another untenable self-contradiction.

> If sin is as deadly serious as we are to believe, it seems almost insulting to God’s character and integrity to expect that He should save us merely because we say we’re sorry.

It's not merely because we say we're sorry. Repentance is actually a 180º turnabout. It's renouncing who you are and the direction in which you are going, a complete 180-turn, and a renewal of person. It involves becoming a new creation (Jn. 3.3; 2 Cor. 5.17). It is far from merely saying we're sorry.

> a pedophile can cry real tears and say he’s sorry and beg for forgiveness from the court all he wants - but that doesn’t make it right.

Agreed. That's not repentance and salvation are. I agree with you. If salvation were this, it would be just a potentially disingenuous.

> Either salvation comes entirely from God OR we have to admit that man’s own efforts DO play a role in salvation (ie it is not God alone that saves)

The Bible is quite clear that salvation (the price paid, the blood shed, and initiating the relationship with us by invitation and conviction) is the work of God. It is just as clear that it doesn't happen automatically but demands from us a sincere repentance, a genuine turning, a response to the offer of the gift (believing and accepting), receiving the life and presence of God inside of us ("in Christ" and "walking in the Spirit"), and a newness of life (sanctification, righteousness, and walking according to Christ). God alone saves, but our response is not only crucial but necessary. It's not a work (earning), but is a necessary role we play. God won't save us without our partnership in the process. He is the saver, but we have to sign on the line.

[Goo Goo]

So what happens to those who have heard the stories of Jesus and find them a bit too farfetched to believe? Sent to Hell for not believing ancient, bizarre stories of miracles?

[jimwalton]

We are all responsible to assess the truth properly, whether in science, political impeachment proceedings, journalism reports of unrest in Hong Kong, or history (did the Holocaust actually happen?). Though we often make decisions viscerally rather than logically, and though our emotions can color our perceptions (ancient, bizarre stories), we are still liable for how we determine truth.

The first approach to the question is "Are miracles possible?" Though you may consider them to be bizarre, normalcy or bizarreness is not the determinant of truth. When we think about miracles from a scientific viewpoint, though science can't explain miracles, there is nothing in science that says such things are impossible (only improbable from a naturalistic viewpoint). Science can't rule out the possibility of miracles.

Neither can logic rule out the possibility of miracles. In any given universe, there is a possibility of aberrant phenomena that don't conform to "life as usual."

Theology doesn't rule out the possibility of miracles. While the scientific probability may be a million to 1, theologically the probability is x:x. If there is such a being as God, a miracle is well within the bounds of His power.

The second approach, since miracles are not scientifically or logically able to be ruled out, is the possibility (if not probability) that your opinion is biased. Perhaps you a priori rule out their possibility. If that's the case, that's just prejudice. Perhaps the stories go against the grain of what you think is reasonable. That's the case with all of us—there is nothing reasonable about miracles. So we are left with this: Does their unreasonableness make them impossible? No, it doesn't.

So the conclusion of the matter isn't dependent on could they occur, but instead did they occur. You have to evaluate why you doubt them. If it's remotely possible that miracles could occur (if the universe is not a causally closed system), and if quantum mechanics offers even less of a problem for special divine action, then even the most stunning miracles are not clearly inconsistent with natural laws.

Possibly you doubt them because you don't believe in God. OK, but then the problem is not with miracles but instead with theism, which is a different conversation. Certainly if God exists, it's not unreasonable that He is active in the world.

Possibly, then, if you find the miracles a bit too bizarre and far-fetched to believe, you need to go back and reassess how you've arrived at that conclusion and whether it was a fair and legitimate process. Otherwise, it could just be your prejudicial rejection of what could be truth, in which case God just may have a justifiable case against you.

[Goo Goo]

Out of all the supernatural claims ever made by human beings, what percentage do you believe are actually true? I mean everything from miracles, possession, spirits, ghosts, fairies, golems, genies, djinns, demons, angels, vampires, werewolves... to psychics, mediums, fortune tellers, soothsayers, glasslookers, healers, seers, astrologers, prophets, gurus, witches, messiahs, etc...

Isn't it reasonable to conclude that (at least) the vast majority of supernatural claims are bogus? Which makes the likelihood that any such claim is true to be extraordinarily unlikely, like "a million to one", right? That's why I doubt supernatural claims. Is this doubt unreasonable?

Of course, a firm believer in fairies, for example, could say: "Well, nothing in science says fairies are impossible. Though you might consider fairies bizarre, normalcy is not the arbiter of truth. If you reject the possibility of fairies a priori, that's just prejudice, etc..." But those arguments don't move me any more than they move you. So when I hear about talking snakes, pregnant virgins, and casting demons into pigs, it doesn't seem that the possibility of such occurrences has any impact on the plausibility. The likelihood of supernatural events seems very, very low.

Do you think I deserve everlasting punishment because I find ancient stories about miracles difficult to believe? Does God have a "justifiable case" against me?

[jimwalton]

> Out of all the supernatural claims ever made by human beings, what percentage do you believe are actually true?

That's a great question and one I wouldn't be confident answering. I do believe in spiritual beings and spiritual forces, but I also know that people make up a lot of stuff, and there's a bunch of mythology and superstition. I'm not one to throw out the baby with the bathwater, though; just because there are a bunch of fake stories doesn't mean there aren't plenty of real ones. Just because there are corrupt politicians doesn't mean they're all corrupt. Just because people make up many stories about Alexander the Great doesn't mean that all of the stories are false.

> Isn't it reasonable to conclude that (at least) the vast majority of supernatural claims are bogus?

I don't think that's reasonable because it's assuming the worst. If we have no grasp on the actual percentage, it's disingenuous to put a negative spin on it. That's just bias: "I don't the real amount, so I'll assume what I want it to be." That's not fair.

> Which makes the likelihood that any such claim is true to be extraordinarily unlikely, like "a million to one", right?

I didn't say the claim was extraordinarily unlikely. What I said was that scientifically speaking the odds of a miracle might be a million to one. That only means that miracles are few and far between, not that they are extraordinarily unlikely. If God exists, and if He is active in the world, then miracles are occurring. (I define a miracle as "a supernatural exception to the regularity and predictability of the universe, and therefore it is not a common occurrence." There's no reason to see it as something contrary to nature.)

> Of course, a firm believer in fairies, for example, could say: "Well, nothing in science says fairies are impossible. Though you might consider fairies bizarre, normalcy is not the arbiter of truth. If you reject the possibility of fairies a priori, that's just prejudice, etc..."

I disagree. I think science can easily weigh in on the nonexistence of fairies. Fairies are supposed to be small, visible, flighted human-like creatures with particular magical powers. We know such entities don't exist.

> So when I hear about talking snakes, pregnant virgins, and casting demons into pigs, it doesn't seem that the possibility of such occurrences has any impact on the plausibility. The likelihood of supernatural events seems very, very low.

Talking snakes. You very possibly misunderstand. It may not have been a literal snake. The Hebrew word for serpent is nahash, which is indeed the common word for snake, but it also possibly means "able to stand upright." There are all kinds of verbal possibilities here. For instance, nahash is the same root as nehoset, which means "bronze". We see that the shiny, upright snake in Number 21.9 is the same root: it was a literal thing, but a spiritual symbol. "Snake" could also be a word play, because the Hebrew word for "deceive" is very close to it, and is the same root as for magic and divination. Snakes in the ancient world were very much associated with spiritual powers, magic, and cultic rituals. So maybe that's why it was a snake and not another animal.

Back to Genesis now. So what if this "thing" (the nahash) was a spiritual power, represented to the woman as a bright creature (like bronze), speaking "spiritual wisdom," and yet was deceiving her—all of these can be expressed by the word for snake? Just a little bit of research could change the whole picture. It's very possibly like a spiritual power, and not a snake. That's why Eve would talk to it and why it would talk back.

Pregnant virgins. It's safe to assume they knew about the birds and the bees. There are several things we know about this story: (1) There was no expectation of a virginal birth. It was not perceived as part of their prophecy. They weren't looking for it and would have no reason to make it up. (2) They knew that it takes two to tango. Claiming a virgin birth would hurt their case, not help it. No one in their right mind would claim a virgin birth unless that's what happened. There are hints in Scripture that Mary suffered through life under the suspicion of being a slut. A claim of pregnant virgins was not a ticket to credibility.

Casting Demons into pigs. I mentioned that I believe in spiritual beings and forces. Demons, however, are more like amoral trouble-makers (chaos creatures) than evil beings or forces of darkness. They're more like a hurricane (just making a mess) than Satan's angels. We never read in Scripture that demons cause people to sin or motivate them in that direction. Instead, they just make a mess wherever they go.

So, how plausible are these things? They are all dependent on the reality of spiritual beings and forces. I've examined the logical and scientific evidences for theism and am convinced. The argument for the existence of God far outweighs the arguments against. And if one spirit being with spiritual power exists, it's not a stretch that others do also. If we evaluate the arguments, we discover that belief in God is neither irrational nor incoherent. In contrast, it's a quite sensible conclusion based on the evidence.

And if there is a greater plausibility that God exists than that He doesn't, then the likelihood of supernatural events seem greater than average.

> Do you think I deserve everlasting punishment because I find ancient stories about miracles difficult to believe? Does God have a "justifiable case" against me?

I believe what the Bible says: God will be fair with everyone. He knows our upbringing, motives, experiences, what we were taught, how people treated us, and what thoughts went on in our heads. It's not my place to say what you deserve. Nor am I capable of saying how honestly you have investigated or critiqued the things we're discussing here: the existence of God, the rationality of theism, or the possibility of miracles. That's something I imagine only you and God know. You'd be the better one to judge what you've been through and what God might have to say, if He exists (I obviously believe he does), when you stand in front of Him.

[Once a Week]

Yeah, I guess as far as I go, I don’t know. I have never been able to identify with any organized religion, particularly Christianity. I find it just dripping with hypocrisy and I feel honestly repelled by most Christians I meet. I feel like it’s used as a tool in most cases. “I’m a Christian, I’m saved, therefore I am better than you, and also, I’m free to be a total asshole because I’m saved, thank you Jesus!”

That just turns me RIGHT off. I am very spiritual and went through a period of time a couple years back where I was just assaulted left and right with spiritual experiences, to the point where I begged for them to stop so I could have a normal life. I feel like there is no church for me.

A lot of what I was delving into during that time was why I feel attracted to Jesus as the individual and feel he is a very benevolent force of good, and yet massively repelled by organized religion. The closest thing to an answer I got was, yes, I (Jesus and God in general) was and am real, but no, religion is not right.

So I don’t know what to do with that. I feel a real gap and ache in my life for community yet every church I have tried loses me almost instantly with the things I mentioned above. There is nothing like people who go spend hours a week singing about their love of God who will then beat their kid, cheat on their wife, curse at the dinner table, kick the dog, litter on the street, etc.

It makes me just feel like it’s all a sham and I feel so thoroughly repelled.

[jimwalton]

> I find it just dripping with hypocrisy and I feel honestly repelled by most Christians I meet

I obviously don't know where you live and what exposure you've had. And even though I see some Christians who are hypocrites (every field has them: politicians, businesspeople, educators, etc.), the vast majority of Christians I know are sincere and caring people.

> That just turns me RIGHT off.

It would turn me off, too. That's just not my experience at all. I know many Christians who help the poor, visit in prisons, work to better the world, care about justice, advocate for oppressed people, and on and on. I just wonder if somehow you're seeing a distorted picture because of your region or group of friends.

> I am very spiritual and went through a period of time a couple years back where I was just assaulted left and right with spiritual experiences, to the point where I begged for them to stop so I could have a normal life.

This is so interesting. So you are aware of spiritual beings, forces, and experiences. I'd genuinely be interested in hearing about these.

> I feel like there is no church for me.

Again, I don't know where you live, but in my travels and moves around the country I have been able to find wherever I go good churches who speak and live the truth.

> A lot of what I was delving into during that time was why I feel attracted to Jesus as the individual and feel he is a very benevolent force of good, and yet massively repelled by organized religion.

Jesus is quite the person, and that's why we focus on him and not the church (though the church is supposed to be his presence on Earth). I read a book a number of years back by Dan Kimball, "They Like Jesus but not the Church." You're not alone.

> So I don’t know what to do with that.

What I have found helpful is to read the New Testament. Get the story from the horse's mouth. Find out about the real Jesus, and then how Paul analyzes what that's supposed to do for one's life. I find it to be an energizing, compelling narrative. It gets me excited and grounded in the right place.

> I feel a real gap and ache in my life for community yet every church I have tried loses me almost instantly with the things I mentioned above.

You're probably not aware, but there is a new movement brewing in the "Church." There are many millennials who feel as you do: the Church just isn't cutting it for me, but I'm impressed with Jesus and I'm aware of spiritual realities. The new movement is house churches: gatherings of 15 people, without the trappings of institutional Christianity, but instead simple followers of Jesus. They meet in homes, garages, and places like hotel lobbies, in groups of 12-25ish, reading the Bible to understand what it REALLY says and then living that way.

I would encourage you not to give up on Jesus (and spiritual truth) just because you'd had (obviously) terrible experiences with Christians.