God Prefers Kind Atheists over Hateful Christians

[QAF_Rocks]

First, you can believe what you want but I have a right to point out you are being a little narrow minded if you assume that she is lying just because you personally don't agree with what the people she was talking to said. Second, you said "these people just don't get it" in relation to what this woman was quoted as saying, operating entirely on your own opinion of what must have happened because you just can seem to wrap your mind around the last point I am going to make...

I don't think she was lying. I think it's more likely that she was mistaken. I don't doubt that they are getting many compliments, but the people who said that they would "probably reconsider" because of the sign are most likely not atheists. Isn't it possible that she could have mistaken people who are frustrated with narrow-minded churches for actual atheists?

An atheist who has put even a modicum of thought into their beliefs is not going to consider joining Christianity simply because a church puts up a nice sign. Our objection to their religion is not based on the negative actions of believers, nor on the immorality of a negative afterlife. It's based on what we see as a complete and utter lack of evidence for any gods. Granted, I have not met every atheist in the world, but this woman's statement about "many atheists" coming up to her and saying they would reconsider based on the sign flies in the face of everything I know about and have personally experienced with self-identified atheists.

Not everyone who attends church does so because they are believers in everything the church teaches. Some only believe most, some only believe a portion, and some just want to be part of the church's community. Alternately, just because someone believes, it doesn't mean they attend church. You didn't say "their god" you said "what this church teaches" and what this church teaches is made up of a whole lot of different ideas and beliefs, some of which may be true, some of which may not be true and which the parishioners can decide for themselves what they believe.

This church teaches that a god is real. If people don't believe that this god is real, then it makes absolutely no sense for them to join the Methodists simply because they put up a nice sign. That's all I was trying to say. I'm not going to get into the nitty-gritty of the belief system, but if you don't even accept the most basic premise, then I don't think it makes any logical sense to join this church. What on earth is the point of going to a church that focuses on the worship of a god you don't believe exists?

[chiccy]

OK, here we go. I’m going to respond to specific things you’ve said in a separate post (later tonight probably), but I think the following pieces of evidence disprove at least a few of your comments. Sorry this is massively long:

PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH (U.S.A.) (the non-Evangelical branch of the Presbyterian Church)

From this http://gamc.pcusa.org/ministries/theolo ... ues-grace/ article on the Church’s official website):

Such wrestling with the relation of grace, predestination, and human responsibility still leaves unanswered the question whether explicit faith in Christ is necessary for salvation. Most open particularists are “optimistic agnostics†about this question. We believe the answer is known to God alone. Yet what we know about the power of God’s work in Christ and about God’s love for sinners — especially God’s love for us in our sin — makes it difficult for us to believe that God will not find a way to reconcile even those who hear the gospel and reject it. It is even harder for us to believe that God will not find a way to save those who have never heard the gospel proclaimed faithfully.

From “A STUDY OF UNIVERSALISMâ€(Study of Universalism: GA Minutes 1974: 133–143/Denomination: PCUS):

Judgment, however, is not seen in the Bible as falling merely upon nonbelievers or upon the “wicked.†Judgment begins at the household of God, with those who confess his name. How God judges people is made clear in Jesus’ parable of the sheep and the goats, where both the “cursed†and the “blessed†are surprised by the basis of his judging them. (Matthew 25:31-46) Statements concerning judgment are frequently made in contexts which show that the purpose is to remind God’s people that they are to live responsibly and obediently, not taking his grace for granted. […]

There is nothing in scripture which expressly says that a person who dies without having faith in Jesus Christ will be saved, but there is sufficient evidence for hope to caution us against closing the door on God’s possibilities. […]

There are some passages in the New Testament which speak of all human beings as experiencing the grace of God as ultimate destiny:

(1) In Romans 9–11, Paul speaks of God’s “hardening†some people for the accomplishment of his purposes, and he speaks metaphorically of God as a potter who makes some vessels “for destruction.†This activity of God is presented as part of his plan of salvation which he is working out through historical persons and events. The end result of the process is stated in Romans 11:32: “For God has consigned all men to disobedience that he may have mercy upon all.†This leads Paul into a doxology celebrating God as the “Source, Guide and Goal of all that is.†(Romans 11:33–36 NEB) If any conclusion concerning the ultimate fate of all humankind is warranted from this passage, it would be that all people will eventually experience the grace of God for salvation in the way the person of faith has now begun to experience it.

(2) Jesus promises, “I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself.†(John 12:31) While this passage probably has more to do with the universal significance of Christ’s saving death and resurrection and points to the affirmation that “no one comes to the Father but by me†(John 14:6), one has little justification of placing limits upon the “all.â€

(3) In Romans 5:12–21 Paul contrasts the universal impact of Adam’s act and that of Jesus’ act. If the parallelism in 5:18 is exact, the eventual salvation of all would be derived from the words “. . . as one man’s trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one man’s act of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for all men.†There is no basis for seeing the “all†differently in the two phrases. Paul seems to be more interested in stressing the power of Christ to overcome human sinfulness than Adam’s power which leads to it. Both here and in other places Paul is convinced that God’s grace is ultimately more powerful and more successful than human sinfulness. “But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man’s trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift in the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many. . . . Where sin increased, grace abounded all the more.†(Romans 5:15, 20)

It is doubtful that Paul here means to assert that all persons will be saved, but his stress on God’s superabounding grace should caution us not to limit God’s possibilities.

(4) In I Corinthians 15 Paul speaks of the resurrection of Christ as the ground and the assurance of the believer’s resurrection. Again he contrasts the effects of Adam’s and Christ’s acts: “As in Adam all die, so in Christ shall all be made alive.†(I Corinthians 15:22) He goes on to speak of the ultimate destruction of all God’s enemies and the subjection of all things to God in Christ, so that in the end God is “all things to everyone.†(15:28) If these enemies are persons, their end may be destruction rather than salvation; but the only enemy specifically mentioned is “death†(how does one destroy death except by life?), which suggests that Paul has in mind not human enemies but rather such “supernatural†enemies as those which in Romans 8:36 he says will never “be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus.â€

So it’s not just an eccentric belief among some members (“I just don't think the evidence for that exists in their official doctrine. You can certainly find plenty of nice Protestants who believe that…â€); rather, these are beliefs that are either stated explicitly in the official doctrine, or encompassed by it, and thus considered mainstream interpretations. Yes, official doctrine saying “we don’t know†also counts as encompassing these beliefs. It’s a far cry from saying “all non-Christians are precluded from heaven.â€

More Presbyterian quotes (still from the Study of Universalism):

Given the limitations upon our knowledge, it would seem presumptuous to attempt a final definite answer. That does not mean, however, that one view is as good as any other. The weight of Biblical teaching as a whole does not support any view which: (a) does not emphasize the priority and finality of God’s grace; (b) assumes that a person’s final destiny depends upon his own meritorious words (including faith); © discounts the importance of personal faith in Jesus Christ as savior and personal obedience to him as Lord; (d) denies the urgency of proclaiming the good news of God’s grace in Jesus Christ to all; (e) places limits upon God’s freedom to save persons when, where, and how he will.

We affirm in accord with the clear evidence of Scripture and our Confession:

1. That God’s purpose for humankind and for his whole creation is gracious and loving. God’s love is universal. God hates evil and wills its defeat. Evil and the rejection of his love are subject to judgment and condemnation. How his loving and holy purpose is ultimately to be realized is beyond our comprehension or understanding. We must not seek to resolve that mystery by the assertion of universalism, or in the fear of universalism deny the universal love that is undeserved by us as sinful creatures.

2. That salvation is God’s gracious gift freely offered to undeserving persons. Nothing we do, not even our repentance and faith, has any claim upon God.

So, once again, the belief by many, many non-Evangelical Christians that non-Christians are not excluded from heaven--and even that ‘everyone is going to Heaven’--are not marginal beliefs as you suggest. Rather, they (especially the former) represent interpretations that fall squarely under the parameters of a great many non-evangelical doctrinal statements. As I said in a previous post, most doctrinal statements are open enough to include many interpretations by the faithful. Many congregants hold inclusive beliefs, not in spite of the doctrinal statements, as you suggest, but completely in accordance with them.

Now, to address other denominations:

EPISCOPAL CHURCH

An official response on the question from an Episcopal reverend (posted here: http://en.allexperts.com/q/Episcopalian ... ernity.htm )

QUESTION: Hello,

Over the years my understanding of the Old Testament has changed quite a bit. For example, after much study I now have a new understanding of why today's Jews believe like they do. They (at least Orthodox Jews) still try to live the way that God prescribed for them over 3,000 years ago. I can follow their interpretation of OT scripture and can also understand the Christian interpretation. Hence, my dilemma.

Many Protestant denominations adamantly say that these Jews are still going to an eternity of suffering in hell. I know the devout nature of a number of these people and how much they truly love God. So, I am looking for a church that does not believe that everyone outside of Christianity is going to a suffering hell - eternity is a long time to believe God would impose punishment on people for decisions made in a temporal life.

What would be the Episcopalian stand on this? I'm running out of hope in finding a church that I will feel comfortable in and have not yet checked out any Anglican churches.

Thanks.

Sam

ANSWER: Dear Sam,

Thank you for your well thought out question. The God that created heaven, earth and all that is is all loving. Therefore, it would be inconsistent, according to God's nature, to contemplate a God who would automatically condemn a segment of people of God's own creation. Furthermore, the Old Covenant (Testament) between God and human beings was first made with Abram (later named Abraham) whom God promised to make his descendants as numerous as the stars of the sky... as numerous as the grains of sand.

The children of Abraham are God's chosen people. As time went on, those children were freed from slavery in Egypt through God's chosen one, Moses, and they were given the "Law" by which to live their lives. The Jews of today are the descendants of God's chosen people. Jews, therefore, are God's children by birth. In fact, Jesus himself was a Jew and in his own words "Salvation is from the Jews" (John 4:22).

We Christians are God's (adopted) children through baptism in the death and resurrection of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. In the Episcopal Church, we hold that each person must use their God given gift of reason to come to spiritual understanding. This reason is based on the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments containing all things necessary for salvation; and on the tradition of the church from the time of the apostles onward through the centuries. It is at times referred to as a "three-legged stool" (i.e. Scripture, Tradition and Reason). In our church it is explained in the book "Of the Lawes of Ecclesiastical Politie" by Richard Hooker, a priest and Anglican Theologian (Divine).

I hope this has been helpful. Please let me know if you have further thoughts on this or any other subject. I will keep you in my prayers that you find a spiritual home where your conscience may be at peace.

Christ's peace,

Leon Mozeliak

(If the above is confusing—“This reason is based on the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments…†I can try to explain it. It does NOT mean that one’s reason must lead one to accept the truth of the Old and New Testaments; basically, the priest is trying to say that reason and tradition based on the Scriptures lead to an Episcopalian spiritual understanding.)

---------- FOLLOW-UP ----------

QUESTION: Thank you Rev Mozeliak. I found your response to be thought provoking and what I think I understood of it resonated with me. However, I am still not sure about the following. Can you please elaborate?

Within the Episcopal Church is there a consensus among the leadership of the church on these questions:

1. What is required of one to be "saved" -- to have salvation?

2. Does #1 apply to Jews also, or can they continue to live according to their covenant?

3. What is the eternal fate of those that are not "saved" -- or whatever the terminology is within your church. Is there eternal suffering?

I appreciate your help in this perplexing matter.

Sam

Dear Sam,

From my count there are 140 verses in the Bible that use the word “Salvationâ€. I will assume that by salvation you mean life with God throughout eternity. If we agree on this as our basis, then salvation for Jews would be through the Covenant that God made with them, the Old Testament; and salvation for Christians is through the New Testament.

When Jesus of Nazareth came to save sinners, he came as the Christ, the Messiah… yet his Messianic role was not what the Children of Israel had anticipated it would be and therefore many of them, even to this day, have not accepted him as the Messiah.

Yet, God is all loving and all merciful as well as all just. I would hold that the Jews that have not accepted Jesus as the Messiah, who died to redeem the sins of all people, are still bound by the Old Covenant, even as we are bound by the New. A covenant is a relationship which is initiated by God, to which a body of people respond in faith (The Book of Common Prayer p. 846).

Since God gave the Old Covenant to the Hebrew people and our Lord, Jesus, came not to destroy the law… but to fulfill it. It would appear that the “Law†would still be in force for those who have not yet come to accept the New Covenant relationship with God. This would especially hold true since God promised that the Hebrew people would be God’s people to bring all nations of the world to God and the fact that God requires them to be faithful; to love justice, to do mercy, and to walk humbly with their God. They must keep the Law of Moses, where we are bound by the law of love which we received from our Lord, Jesus. “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.â€

Sam, our Lord, Jesus Christ, died for all people of all time. Many have not acknowledged this and still many do not know this. Those who do and who live our lives according to his great commandment are bound for eternal life. Those who are among the “lost†or the people who are not part of Christ’s mystical body… the Church… are subject to God’s divine mercy. It is our assurance as Christians that nothing, not even death, will separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord. I hope this has been helpful.

Christ’s peace,

Leon Mozeliak+

From this Episcopalian blogger (http://www.josephclan.com/tjblog/?p=1239) :

During our recent winter sojourn in Kerala, my sister and brother-in-law who live in Australia visited with us for a couple of days. We had an interesting discussion whether salvation is possible for non-Christians ………. and, in fact, whether any one who is not “born again†can achieve salvation.

I told them – much to their shock – that even Pope Benedict had issued a proclamation in 2005 specifically stating that biblical belief was not necessary to attain salvation. This was quite a revelation to them since it went against conventional Christian doctrine. Upon reflection, it is remarkable that Benedict – a conservative Pope – would have publicly adopted such a position. The following is essentially what Benedict said in November, 2005 while addressing 23,000 people gathered in St Peter’s square:

“Whoever seeks peace and the good of the community with a pure conscience, and keeps alive the desire for the transcendent, will be saved even if he lacks biblical faith.â€

He went on to elaborate as to the rationale for the above declaration as outlined on the link.

[…]

Many of the divisions within Christianity as well as other faiths and the resultant tensions. animosity and injustices perpetrated over the centuries often rest on interpretations of the scriptures of a religion.

Benedict’s broader view regarding salvation – which would be viewed as anathema among evangelicals and most conservative denominations, including some Roman Catholics, was well articulated by a poster (Trishie) on a Catholic forum who wrote:

“Who can be saved? Jesus says it’s about actively loving others or not which determines our eternal destiny. This therefore is the bottom line.

I am sometimes sad that there is sometimes less emphasis placed on Jesus’ words than should be placed on the words of the saviour of the human race who is God’s Son, who is God as well as human. Jesus is the source of salvation and the foundation of the Church. Can we call ourself Christians if we don’t accept the words of Jesus the Christ?â€

She then cites biblical support for the point of view that she outlines above:

“When the Son of Man comes in all His glory, escorted by all the angels, then he will take his seat on his throne of glory. All the nations will be assembled before him and he will separate men from one another as the shepherd separates sheep from goats. He will place the sheep on his right hand and the goats on his left.

Then the King shall say to those on his right hand: ‘Come you whom my Father has blessed, take for your heritage the kingdom prepared for you since the foundation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me food; I was a stranger and you made me welcome. I was thirsty and you gave me drink; I was a stranger and you made me welcome; naked and you clothed me; sick and you visited me, in prison and you came to see me.’

Then the virtuous will say to him in reply, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you; or thirsty and give you drink? When did we see you hungry and feed you; or thirsty and give you drink? When did we see you a stranger and make you welcome; naked and clothe you; sick or in prison and go to see you?’

And the King will answer, ‘I tell you solemnly, in so far as you did this to one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did it to me.’

Next he will say to those on his left: ‘Go away from me with your curse upon you, to the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels, for when I was hungry you never gave me food; I was thirsty and you never gave me anything to drink; I was a stranger and you never made me welcome, naked and you never clothed me, sick and in prison and you never visited me.’

Then it will be their turn to ask, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty; a stranger or naked, sick or in prison, and not come to your help?’

Then he will answer, “I tell you solemnly, in so far as you neglected to do this to one of the least of these, you neglected to do it to me.†And they will go away to eternal punishment, and the virtuous to eternal life.†Matthew 25 (verses 31-46)

She concludes her posting with these comments:

“And since Jesus is the very Person who will judge all of us, I think we have to accept HIS criteria for who may be saved! His criteria is salvation depends upon our charity towards other people, which He regards as charity directly given to Him.â€

THE EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN CHURCH IN AMERICA (the second-largest mainline Protestant denomination; it’s not actually evangelical):

From the main page of their belief statement:

The ELCA’s story is both ancient and timely. It’s a story of a powerful and patient God who has boundless love for all people of the world.

From this page (http://gnesiolutheran.com/elca-lcms-2/):

ELCA – The ELCA teaches that non-Christians can go to heaven. From their website: “â€The Christian hope for salvation, whether for the believing few or the unbelieving many, is grounded in the person and meaning of Christ alone, not in the potential of the world’s religions to save, nor in the moral seriousness of humanists and people of good will, not even in the good works of pious Christians and church people…. There is a universalist thrust in the New Testament, particularly in Paul’s theology. How else can we read passages such as ‘for as all die in Adam, so all will be made alive in Christ’â€

Again: “If Jesus is the Lord and Savior, he is the universal Lord and Savior, not merely my personal Lord and Savior. Because Jesus is the unique and universal Savior, there is a large hope for salvation, not only for me and others with the proper credentials of believing and belonging to the church, but for all people whenever or wherever they might have lived and no matter how religious or irreligious they may have proved to be themselves.â€

UNITED CHURCH OF CHRIST:

From http://www.patheos.com/Library/United-C ... alism.html:

“Congregationalists gradually turned away from Calvinist teachings on predestination. UCC congregants hold a range of views on the afterlife, with some believing in universalism, or the idea that ultimately all humans will be reconciled to God.â€

I can’t get you the UCC’s official doctrine on salvation because they don’t have official doctrines for much of anything (except for their creeds, which don’t treat specific theological questions such as this one.) Here are some illuminating quotes from the website of the Wheat Ridge Congregational Church of the United Church of Christ (http://www.wheatridgeucc.org/pastor.html):

Congregations are self-governing. There is no official doctrine that all UCC congregations must follow. Some congregations might be thought of as conservative, but a larger number probably view themselves as moderate or liberal.

2. What do you mean by "liberal"?

The word liberal when used by itself is imprecise. Liberal Christianity should be distinguished from other forms of liberalism such as liberal philosophy, liberal economics, liberal politics, liberal morality, and so forth. In general, for Roman Catholics "liberalism" means that the teachings of the Vatican (the Pope) are given less authority. For Protestants, "liberalism" usually means that the Bible is interpreted less strictly or less literally. Christian liberalism also tends to affirm (a) that science and religion are compatible; (b) that there is no one correct path to "salvation" which may be stipulated for all people; and © that social responsibility on issues such as peace, justice, respect for human rights, and the environment is a vital aspect of religious faith. […]

7. What does the UCC say you have to believe or do in order to be "saved"?

The UCC has no single teaching about salvation. In fact, many members of the UCC are probably very uncomfortable with the fundamentalist view that some people are "saved" and will "go to heaven" while others are "lost" and will "go to hell." This idea rigidly divides human beings into two opposing groups and encourages a type of exclusivism or elitism in churches. We believe that any person who sincerely searches for God is on the right track. Each individual has a personal history and personal spiritual needs which must be met uniquely. Some may feel the need to be "born again," while others may not. The Apostle Paul himself seems to recognize this when he writes, "work out your own salvation in fear and trembling, for it is God who is at work in you" (Philippians 2:12-13).

MORE ON CATHOLICS:

From this (http://vivacatholic.wordpress.com/2008/ ... hristians/) Catholic site:

Salvation of Non-Christians

January 24, 2008

What is the fate of those who lived and died before they have the chance to hear the Gospel? Before we answer that question we need to briefly summarize what Catholics believe about our salvation:

1. Men, though have freedom, can neither will nor save themselves without God’s Grace. God, by His Grace, takes the first initiative for our salvation and using our freedom we response to and cooperate with His Grace. Grace is (Catechism of the Catholic Church # 1996) favour, the free and undeserved help that God gives us to respond to his call to become children of God, adoptive sons (John 1:12), partakers of the divine nature and of eternal life (2 Peter 1:4).

2. God calls all men for salvation and therefore He gives His Grace through Christ to everyone. Scripture says (RSV): ‘For the grace of God has appeared for the salvation of all men’ (Titus 2:11) and ‘For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.’ (1 Corinthians 15:22).

3. Since the initiative for our salvation belongs to God, there is what we call as predestination. God predestines some (the Elect) to heaven but He predestines no one to hell. Scripture says that He desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth (1 Timothy 2:4, RSV). Those who end up in hell do so because they, in using their freedom, reject or refuse to cooperate with His Grace.

4. God’s Grace first moves us to believe in Christ and to obey His Commandments. Without His Grace we cannot do both, not even have the initiative to do them. Scripture says (RSV): ‘No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him‘ (John 6:44) and ‘Not that we are competent of ourselves to claim anything as coming from us; our competence is from God‘ (2 Corinthians 3:5). Catholics believe that salvation is by grace with which we must cooperate using our freedom. Thus Catholics reject what is known as monergism, the belief that God’s grace requires no human cooperation. Scripture says (RSV): ‘But by the grace of God I am what I am. and his grace toward me was not in vain. On the contrary, I worked harder than any of them, though it was not I, but the grace of God which is with me (1 Corinthians 15:10) and ‘work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; for God is at work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure (Philippians 2:12-13). In Revelation 3:20 while Christ takes the initiative to knock at our door He waits our response to open the door to welcome Him.

5. The Elect have assurance of salvation but unless God reveals it to us we cannot identify them.

6. Christ died on the cross for all men – He ‘who gave himself as a ransom for all’ (1 Timothy 2:6, RSV), who ‘came into the world to save sinners’ (1 Timothy 1:15, RSV) and who ‘came to seek and to save the lost (Luke 19:10, RSV).

7. Faith in Christ and in God is God’s free gift – He gave it to us not because we did something to deserve it; faith is necessary and is the beginning of our salvation. Once we believe in Christ and if we have the opportunity we should be baptized and become the member of His Church, which is His Body; then with the help of and moved by God’s Grace we obey His commandments – we undergo what Scripture calls as Sanctification. Scripture says (RSV): ‘He who believes and is baptized will be saved’ (Mark 16:16), Do this and you will live“! (Luke 10:28) and ‘God chose you from the beginning to be saved through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth’ (2 Thessalonians 2:13). Scripture nowhere says that faith alone saves us. Christ said (RSV): ‘Not every one who says to me, Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is ion heaven (Matthew 7:21). ‘You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone (James 2:24, RSV)

From these seven points Catholics believe that salvation is still possible to those who NOT through their own fault, do not hear the Gospel and therefore do not know the Church. Since God, by His Grace offers salvation to all (Titus 2:11) and through Christ all shall be made alive (1 Corinthians 15:22) then He should provide a mean to those who never heard the Gospel – He would not contradict Himself or makes empty promise.

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience – those too may achieve eternal salvation.

Catechism of the Catholic Church # 847

Is there any biblical basis for what Catholics believe?

And Peter opened his mouth and said: “Truly I perceive that God shows no partiality, but in every nation any one who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him.

Acts 10:34 (RSV)

One might argue that here Scripture talks about Cornelius who later became believers of Christ. But certainly there are other Cornelius’ in every nation who fear God and do what is right, which is acceptable to God, even if they do not know Christ. Are they saved by their works? Recall that Catholics believe no one can do any good works without being first moved by God’s Grace.

It is worth to mention that Clause 847 should be read together with:

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.

Catechism of the Catholic Church # 846

Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men.â€

Catechism of the Catholic Church # 848

You yourself have quoted some of the above passages; however, as I have tried to explain, there is substantial flexibility for interpretation within them. Many Catholics might (and do) argue that atheists and other non-Catholics do not “know†that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ; therefore they cannot be obligated to join it as a necessary prerequisite for Salvation.

From this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_reconciliation ) Wikipedia page:

In 2005, Cardinal Murphy O'Connor, the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Westminster, expressed his hope that Protestants and non-believers are destined for heaven[35] and expressed his personal hope that he would be surprised in heaven.

(BTW, Archbishop of Westminster is a biiiig deal.)

From this (http://spectrummagazine.typepad.com/the ... ls-th.html) Protestant blog:

Hans Urs von Balthasar, one of the greatest 20th century Catholic theologians, wrote a book arguing that while Catholics cannot accept the doctrine that everyone is certainly saved, we can still hope that everyone might be saved. (If this sounds confusing, let me rephrase it: What von Balthasar was saying is that every single human individual is faced with a fundamental choice between goodness and evil, so every single human can choose to go to heaven or go to hell. So it is possible that some will go to heaven and some will go to hell, but it is also possible that every single person might be choosing goodness in the depths of his/her heart, and in that case, every single person will be saved. Therefore, we as Christians should be hoping and praying that everyone will end up being saved.

On the other hand, many other Catholic theologians disagree with this argument. Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI disagreed with this argument (note: the latter is not true; see below) , but they both considered von Balthasar to be a great theologian -- JP2 offered to make him a cardinal, and B16 has called him the best theologian of the 20th century. So this just illustrates that this is a perfectly valid option in Catholic theology.

From this article: (http://www.zenit.org/article-14695?l=english):

Nonbelievers Too Can Be Saved, Says Pope

Refers to St. Augustine's Commentary on Psalm 136(137)

VATICAN CITY, NOV. 30, 2005 (Zenit.org).- Whoever seeks peace and the good of the community with a pure conscience, and keeps alive the desire for the transcendent, will be saved even if he lacks biblical faith, says Benedict XVI.

The Pope made this affirmation today at the general audience, commenting on a meditation written by St. Augustine (354-430).

On a rainy morning in Rome, the Holy Father's meditation, addressed to more than 23,000 people gathered in St. Peter's Square, concentrated on the suffering of the Jewish people in the Babylonian exile, expressed dramatically in Psalm 136(137).

The Pontiff referred to Augustine's commentary on this composition of the Jewish people, noting that this "Father of the Church introduces a surprising element of great timeliness."

Augustine "knows that also among the inhabitants of Babylon there are people who are committed to peace and the good of the community, despite the fact that they do not share the biblical faith, that they do not know the hope of the Eternal City to which we aspire," Benedict XVI stated.

"They have a spark of desire for the unknown, for the greatest, for the transcendent, for a genuine redemption," explained the Pope, quoting Augustine.

This spark

"And he says that among the persecutors, among the nonbelievers, there are people with this spark, with a kind of faith, of hope, in the measure that is possible for them in the circumstances in which they live," the Holy Father continued.

"With this faith in an unknown reality, they are really on the way to the authentic Jerusalem, to Christ," he clarified.

Continuing with his quotes from Augustine, the Pope added that "God will not allow them to perish with Babylon, having predestined them to be citizens of Jerusalem, (NOTE: This is a metaphor for salvation and the heaven/hell dichotomy) on the condition, however, that, living in Babylon, they do not seek pride, outdated pomp and arrogance."

The Bishop of Rome concluded by inviting those present to pray to the Lord "that he will awaken in all of us this desire, this openness to God, and that those who do not know God may also be touched by his love, so that all of us journey together toward the definitive City and that the light of this City might also shine in our time and in our world."

ORTHODOXY:

The Orthodox church, one of the largest churches in the world, also promotes a belief close to Universalism.

From this (http://www.relevantmagazine.com/god/dee ... e-only-way) article in Relevant magazine:

According to Philip Gulley, author of If Grace Is True: Why God Will Save Every Person, the difference between universalism and Orthodoxy on these issues [the doctrines of judgment and grace] is not much. “I suspect the chief difference between my understanding of grace and the Orthodox understanding is one of degree,†he says. “I believe grace will ultimately triumph, working for the eternal good in all lives, while Orthodox theology believes that there are limits and boundaries in God’s love for us.â€

From this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_reconciliation) Wikipedia page:

In 2008 the Russian Orthodox bishop Hilarion Alfeyev of Vienna, in his presentation at the First World Apostolic Congress of Divine Mercy (held in Rome in 2008), argued that God's mercy is so great that He does not condemn sinners to everlasting punishment. The Orthodox understanding of hell, said Bishop Hilarion, corresponds roughly to the Roman Catholic notion of purgatory.

Here is a list of churches officially affiliated with the Christian Universalist Association, implying a belief in “the ultimate triumph of divine mercy and grace: that no being ever created will be condemned or allowed to suffer forever, but God has arranged through a benevolent plan of learning and growth for all souls to attain salvation, reconciliation, restoration, and reunion with the Source of All Being, in the fullness of the ages.†Note that the latter belief is even MORE liberal than the one I am focusing on in my argument (namely, that far from all mainstream Christian denominations believe that non-Christians will by default not go to Heaven.) Also, this list is far from exhaustive; it represents only the congregations that bothered to register with this fairly-small and not-so-prominent organization. Many more churches than these believe in universal salvation, and still more believe that it is possible for non-Christians to be Saved:

CHURCHES & MEETING GROUPS

United States

• Alabama

o Shepherd's Heart Fellowship

Leader: Rhett Ellis

Mobile, AL

251-656-6984

• Arizona

o Full Circle Fellowship

Brian Patterson, Pastor

Peoria, AZ

• California

o 618 Ministries

Leaders: Joseph and Claudia Arechiga

8979 Cayuga Ave.

Sun Valley, CA 91352

818-767-2404

• District of Columbia

o Universalist National Memorial Church

1810 16th St. NW

Washington, DC 20009-3304

202-387-3411

• Florida

o New Beginning Ministries

Mary Lou Houllis, Pastor

4004 Bonita Rd.

Holiday, FL 34691

727-937-3647

Mailing address: P.O. Box 31, Tarpon Springs, FL 34688

o Interior Coverings Ministry

Rev. Audrey Drummonds

1039 Carriage Park Dr.

Valrico, FL 33596

813-495-6168

• Illinois

o New Life Ministries

Raymond G. Janisch, Pastor

15 So. Catherine Ave.

La Grange, IL 60525

708-354-1955

o The Sacred Way Fellowship

Rev. Elvin Holloway & Rev. Shawn Bale

111 E 1st Ave

Monmouth, IL 61462

309-734-0950

Mailing address: PO Box 81, Monmouth, IL 61462

• Iowa

o United Methodist Church - Alexander

Rev. Kalen Fristad

P.O. Box 19

Dows, IA 50071

515-852-3325

o First Presbyterian Church - Dows

Rev. Kalen Fristad

P.O. Box 19

Dows, IA 50071

515-852-3325

o United Methodist Church - Dows

Rev. Kalen Fristad

P.O. Box 19

Dows, IA 50071

515-852-3325

• Louisiana

o Abiding Hope Fellowship

David Davis, Pastor

7935 Director Dr.

Baton Rouge, LA 70817

225-751-4673

• Michigan

o God's Holy Universal Outreach Church

Pastor Calvin Jones Jr.

20109 Archdale St.

Detroit, MI 48235

248-678-5109

o Light of the World Ministries

Michael & Diane Nevins

4880 Brooklyn Rd

Jackson, Michigan 49201

517-764-4221

mikenevins@gmail.com

• New Mexico

o Grace Walk Home Meeting

Leader: Robert E. (Bobby) Martin

10404 City Lights Dr NE

Albuquerque, NM 87111

505-856-6171

• New York

o First Parish Society of the Messiah

Garry J. Rumrill, Chaplain

P.O. Box 255

Ilion, NY 13357

315-534-2782

• North Carolina

o New Temple Ministries

Bishop Steve Rich

5996 Welborn Rd.

Trinity, NC 27370

336-434-6561

• Oklahoma

o The Living Room Church

Rev. Ron Robinson

6514 N. Peoria Ave.

Turley, OK 74126

918-794-4637

• Pennsylvania

o Rising Son Ministry

Rev. Elizabeth Ketterer

1807 Vollmer Drive

Glenshaw, PA 15116

• Texas

o Bushland Community Church

Dr. G. A. Roach, Pastor

2712 John Dr.

Amarillo, TX 79110

806-576-7533

o Open Door Fellowship

Charles Slagle, Pastor

Fort Worth, TX

817-798-2501

o Breath of God International Ministries

Pastor Sue Powell

17066 FM 365

Beaumont, TX 77705

409-794-2359

o Freedom Worship Center

John Adair, Sr. Pastor

11704 Cypress N. Houston

Cypress, Texas 77429

281-970-9810

o Christian Unitarian Free Church

Rev. John Bostock

2109 Postoffice Street #147

Galveston, TX 77550

o Saint Brendan's Church

The Rev. Walter L. McFadden, Pastor-Anamchara

1602 W. 43rd St.

Houston, TX 77018

281-813-1768

• Virginia

o Ecumenical Benedictines of Heartsong Hermitage

Rev. Tracey Christopher, H.H.

PO Box 190

Alberta, VA 23821

434-604-6085

• Washington

o Simple Salvation Church of God

General Pastor Jimmie W Warren

2001 E Pacific

Spokane, WA 99207

509-448-4111

For a more general description of universalism in modern Christianity, see this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_ ... dern_types) Wikipedia page, which discusses Universalist beliefs within many Christian groups including charismatic Christianity/Pentecostalism (which you would probably consider a very “conservative†branch otherwise). I stress again that Universalism is a far MORE liberal concept than the simple and popular idea that non-believers are not necessarily excluded from Heaven, which is the main focus of my argument here.

Now, to sum it all up, here’s an article from the Dallas Morning News written in response to Gov. Perry’s comments that all non-believers are going to hell (Source: “Where am I going after I die?â€, by Jeffrey Weiss, Dallas Morning News, January 6, 2007, from http://www.rickross.com/reference/funda ... nd211.html ). It includes a short discussion of the differences of doctrinal opinion within the Methodist church, which could go some way towards explaining why the sign described in the OP was not actually that weird:

[…] Modern Christianity has many answers to who goes to hell. On one extreme are universalists who say that a loving God could leave nobody in eternal torment. On the other are strict Calvinists who say God picked a small elect for paradise before the world was created, and everyone else is stuck in the Handbasket to Hard Times.

The Christian discussion generally starts with this passage from the Gospel of John: "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."

But how does Jesus decide who he'll take to the Father -- and who he won't? Not every Christian claims to have a straight answer.

Former U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft fielded the question on Comedy Central's Daily Show last month. Host Jon Stewart, who is Jewish, jokingly asked Ashcroft to take a bet on the baseball playoffs: If St. Louis won, Stewart would send him a Mets T-shirt. If the Mets won, Ashcroft would get Stewart into heaven.

Ashcroft, famously a member of the conservative Assemblies of God, laughed. Human beings don't have the job of deciding who goes where, he suggested.

"You know, my dad was a preacher," he said. "He said he was in sales, not in management."

Let's make the question concrete, with two examples that theologians actually chew over:

Imagine a man who grows up alone on an island and has never heard of Jesus. When he dies, does he go to hell?

Or consider Mahatma Mohandas Gandhi. He was saintly, but not a Christian. (He was once quoted as saying, "I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.")

Is Gandhi in hell?

Given the importance of the questions, it's not surprising that denominations have official stands on the answers:

United Methodists

Let's start where Texas' governor spent much of his childhood. Most Methodists aren't nearly as certain as Perry seemed to be, said William B. Lawrence, dean of Southern Methodist University's Perkins School of Theology.

"We are far less interested in making the kinds of doctrinal claims that the governor seems to want to assert," he said. [namely, that non-believers in Christ immediately go to hell.]

Methodism has a traditional belief in what it calls "prevenient grace" -- God doing good for us before we know it. That means God could be offering a ticket out of hell to anybody, Lawrence said.

"None of us can make any doctrinal or rational decision about who has been touched by God's grace," he said.

Disagreements about this question have been fossilized in Methodist doctrine. The United Methodist Church, the largest Methodist denomination, was created in 1968, in Dallas, by the merger of the United Brethren and the Methodist Church.

The Methodists had an official doctrine about grace and heaven, the United Brethren about condemnation and hell. Were they complementary or contradictory? Who knows?

"It would be incorrect to suggest that one or the other is absolutely the case," Lawrence said.

Both passages are included in current UMC doctrines.

[…]

Catholic Church

The Catholic Church has absolute doctrines, plus two millenniaof nuance.

The Vatican says that one who truly believes in Catholic teachings and lives a life in accord with those beliefs is guaranteed a place in heaven, said Matthew Ogilvie, assistant professor of systematic theology at the University of Dallas, a Catholic school in Irving.

What about non-Catholic Christians? "Fifty years ago, if you asked your average parish priest or nun, they would have told you than non-Catholics are not going to heaven," he said.

These days, the answer is "Maybe." The Catholic Church says it has the only complete instruction manual -- there's only one best way to the summit of Mount Everest. Other routes might be harder or might end at a crevasse. But some who take a different route might still end up at the top, Ogilvie said.

Not even all who say they're Catholic are guaranteed to stay out of hell. According to a document produced in 2000 by then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI), salvation comes through grace. But "if they fail to respond in thought, word and deed to that grace, not only shall they not be saved, but they shall be the more severely judged."

What about non-Christians? From a document issued by Pope Paul VI in 1964:

"Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience -- those too may achieve eternal salvation."

That covers the man on the island. But Gandhi did know about Christ, didn't he? Maybe not, Dr. Ogilvie said. If he was driven away from the church by nasty Christians, he may never truly have understood Jesus.

The official Catholic catechism offers an even larger possible exception: God can do what God wants.

"God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments."

The traditional Catholic understanding of the afterlife has had three final destinations -- heaven and hell, plus limbo. Limbo was thought to be for cases like the guy on the island, or infants who died before baptism. A draft document that recently was circulated, apparently with the blessing of Benedict, would do away with limbo.

Presbyterian Church (USA)

The Presbyterian Church comes from the Calvinist tradition, said Warner Bailey, director of Presbyterian studies at Brite Divinity School at Texas Christian University.

That tradition includes a belief that God created some people predestined for hell.

Still, "most Presbyterians find that today to be offensive, and theologically not attuned to the Gospel of God's sovereignty and grace," Dr. Bailey said.

The denomination's official position is contained in its catechism, last revised in 1998:

"The limits to salvation, whatever they may be, are known only to God. ... No one will be saved except by grace alone. And no judge could possibly be more gracious than our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ."

How about Gandhi? "How God will deal with those who do not know or follow Christ, but who follow another tradition, we cannot finally say. We can say, however, that God is gracious and merciful, and that God will not deal with people in any other way than we see in Jesus Christ, who came as the Savior of the world."

[…]

Non-denominational

Many Americans now attend non-denominational churches. If those churches wanted to hew to a particular denomination's doctrine, they wouldn't be independent. Therefore, they cover the wide spectrum of answers on the question of who goes to hell.

I hope this was somewhat illuminating. As you said:

There's a difference between believing that a positive afterlife is available to people who reject their deity and believing that a negative afterlife awaits those who do not believe in their god. I'm not aware of any mainstream Christian denominations that assert the former

Well, you should be now! :)

[QAF_Rocks]

QAF_Rocks, I'm going to spend some time researching in order to give you a better answer to other parts of what you said, but there is one thing I wanted to clarify first because I think it's important. The evangelical vs. non-evangelical division has not much to do with "conservative" vs. "liberal" Christianity. Admittedly, I don't think the conservative/liberal divide is as meaningful as you do. I assume you're talking about a conservative doctrine, rather than politics; in that case, yes, evangelicals have a conservative doctrine insofar as they think non-believers are going to hell. But I don't know what the usefulness is of calling that "conservative" rather than "evangelical."

I'm still pretty confused, LOL. I'm afraid I don't have extensive experience with the various Protestant denominations, but what I have experienced seems more in line with there being a divide between liberal theology and conservative theology. It sounds like you're tagging everyone who has conservative theology as evangelical? But I don't think the label of "evangelical" hinges on whether or not they believe that people who reject the existence of a god can attain salvation. I always thought it had more to do with being interested in evangelism. Most mainline Protestants and Catholics (even ones with conservative theology) do not evangelize, at least not in great numbers.

Granted, "without blame on their part" creates a gray area here. This is why you can find doctrinal variations across congregations and across congregants: the doctrine is open enough that people can interpret it different ways and take different positions within it. Some Catholics might say that atheists are of course to blame because they have rejected God outright; others might say that atheists are not to blame for being misguided.

True, but I think they're fuzzy on this issue for a reason. They don't like the implications of hell, so they make it as vague as possible. It leaves them room to deny that good-hearted atheists go to hell, which sounds a lot nicer than otherwise. But they haven't repudiated hell, and this stance is rather insulting. I mean, it's basically saying that atheists are too stupid to understand what they're doing. I personally know pretty much everything there is to know about Catholic theology, and I absolutely knowingly reject the premise of their god. That should send me to hell, according to the Catholic church, but I think even the hierarchy is uncomfortable saying that outright. It's easier for them to pretend I'm ignorant or deluded, and that I'm not really at fault for rejecting the church.

And individuals in the churches do say and believe things with as much variation as that. All this to say that I disagree with your assumption that the non-evangelical Christian denominations rigorously dictate that non-believers are going to Hell, and that members who believe otherwise are just "exceptions."

I don't disagree. I absolutely do believe that most moderate and liberal Protestants (and Catholics) either do not believe in hell at all, or save hell for the "really bad" people like murderers and child molesters. I'm just saying that I don't believe this is reflected in their official doctrine about salvation. The Lutherans, the Methodists, the Presbyterians, and the Episcopalians have not come out with an official statement that says people who reject their god can attain a positive afterlife. They leave it vague as to what happens to non-believers after death. Again, not achieving salvation doesn't have to mean that they believe hell exists as a literal place of eternal torment; it could mean something vague like "spending eternity without God" or else annihilation after death.

[QAF_Rocks]

Chiccy, thanks for going to all that trouble! I will give you that many of the more moderate and liberal Protestant denominations are trending towards universalism. Ultimately, it doesn't matter to me as an atheist, but I'm happy to know that others are rejecting what I see as the most immoral part of the belief system. Still, it would be nice to see them denounce the concept of hell entirely. Their statements (even the more positive ones) seem so wishy-washy to me. They ought to just say outright that they believe everyone goes to heaven, if that is what they in fact believe. Looking at their official doctrine, it still seems like they are very much focused on the idea that believing in a god is important.

[chiccy]

Chiccy, thanks for going to all that trouble! I will give you that many of the more moderate and liberal Protestant denominations are trending towards universalism. Ultimately, it doesn't matter to me as an atheist, but I'm happy to know that others are rejecting what I see as the most immoral part of the belief system. Still, it would be nice to see them denounce the concept of hell entirely. Their statements (even the more positive ones) seem so wishy-washy to me. They ought to just say outright that they believe everyone goes to heaven, if that is what they in fact believe. Looking at their official doctrine, it still seems like they are very much focused on the idea that believing in a god is important.

QAF_Rocks, I agree that a lot of them are pretty vague about it. I think this vagueness is mostly honest (it's usually more honest to admit one "doesn't know"--especially about something as impossible to know about as the afterlife--than to pretend one does!) However, I agree that there could be some part of it that is slightly-to-significantly disingenuous. After all, even the non-evangelicals want people to convert to their faith, and keeping the "damnation" thing open is one way to further that... :?

I totally see what you're saying about all this, and even I was surprised to find that some non-evangelicals are more conservative about this than I thought. (I learned a lot of new things doing all that research, including that some evangelicals are universalists!) That said, I'm going to stand by a couple things: 1) A good way to distinguish theologically between an evangelical and a non-evangelical is whether they think faith in Jesus Christ is necessary for salvation. Although it seems there are exceptions to this in both directions, as I pointed out, I believe it is a more meaningful distinction than the also not-completely-accurate idea that "evangelicals evangelize," which is what you were holding to.

2) "The Lutherans, the Methodists, the Presbyterians, and the Episcopalians have not come out with an official statement that says people who reject their god can attain a positive afterlife." I'm not sure this is true. I think the statements I've posted have been pretty close to what you're asking for, and I think that if I did some more digging I could find even better ones, especially from the Episcopal church. You're talking about "official statement that...people who reject their god can attain a positive afterlife." "Can" is an inclusive term; it means "it's possible." Many of the things I posted suggest exactly that.

3) "Again, not achieving salvation doesn't have to mean that they believe hell exists as a literal place of eternal torment; it could mean something vague like "spending eternity without God" or else annihilation after death." I've been trying to make clear that I don't think this option--an afterlife that is neither Heaven nor Hell--exists within mainstream Christian theology (unless you count purgatory/limbo in Catholicism). I was always taught to see Heaven not as a super-privileged place where only the exceptionally righteous can end up, but as a better world-to-come where most, if not all of us will go. (My dad was a Calvinist and my church was semi-Calvinist; when we learned about the predestination doctrine, we were always told that "it might be everybody" who will end up in Heaven.) I'm tempted to use the word "catch-all" for Heaven, because that's really how I've been taught to think about it in the various churches I've attended. Then again, they haven't been the mean conservative churches; maybe those guys think differently.

So yeah, my point here is that all Christians I know of basically think it's Heaven or Hell for everyone. The theology gets picked apart piece by piece in these circles, so if there were some "option three," people would have written a lot about it, what it could be, etc. As far as I know, they haven't.

[CanadianHippie]

I don't think she was lying. I think it's more likely that she was mistaken. I don't doubt that they are getting many compliments, but the people who said that they would "probably reconsider" because of the sign are most likely not atheists. Isn't it possible that she could have mistaken people who are frustrated with narrow-minded churches for actual atheists?

An atheist who has put even a modicum of thought into their beliefs is not going to consider joining Christianity simply because a church puts up a nice sign. Our objection to their religion is not based on the negative actions of believers, nor on the immorality of a negative afterlife. It's based on what we see as a complete and utter lack of evidence for any gods. Granted, I have not met every atheist in the world, but this woman's statement about "many atheists" coming up to her and saying they would reconsider based on the sign flies in the face of everything I know about and have personally experienced with self-identified atheists.

This church teaches that a god is real. If people don't believe that this god is real, then it makes absolutely no sense for them to join the Methodists simply because they put up a nice sign. That's all I was trying to say. I'm not going to get into the nitty-gritty of the belief system, but if you don't even accept the most basic premise, then I don't think it makes any logical sense to join this church. What on earth is the point of going to a church that focuses on the worship of a god you don't believe exists?

Obviously you don't get that not everyone views religious beliefs as simply as you do.

[QAF_Rocks]

But Canadian Hippie, my statement was hardly controversial.

Something can't be true and not true at the same time. That was my only point. I don't understand how it's viewing religious beliefs "simply" to state that what the church asserts is either true or false. Either their god exists, or it does not exist. Now if it does not exist, then it doesn't matter if this church puts up a nice sign. The sign does not make the religion true or false. There is no reason for someone who believes there is no such thing as a god to join a church simply because they put up a nice sign.

Edited for some clarification.

[QAF_Rocks]

2) "The Lutherans, the Methodists, the Presbyterians, and the Episcopalians have not come out with an official statement that says people who reject their god can attain a positive afterlife." I'm not sure this is true. I think the statements I've posted have been pretty close to what you're asking for, and I think that if I did some more digging I could find even better ones, especially from the Episcopal church. You're talking about "official statement that...people who reject their god can attain a positive afterlife." "Can" is an inclusive term; it means "it's possible." Many of the things I posted suggest exactly that.

Thanks again, Chiccy. But don't you think that the fact that you had to dig deep into their material reflects the fact that they don't openly and proudly assert that people who reject their deity can attain a positive afterlife? I find it encouraging that the information is there at all, but it seems like it's deeply buried in a pile of other information. If you look at the official statements like the one I posted from the main Methodist site, they do expressly say that faith in Jesus Christ is required for salvation. And here, in the section titled "Does the United Methodist Church Believe in Universal Salvation?"

The Book of Discipline of The United Methodist Church includes a section titled Doctrinal Standards and Our Theological Task, which records the official theology of The United Methodist Church.

The section on Distinctive Wesleyan Emphases includes a description of prevenient, justifying, and sanctifying grace. When a person, by the grace of God, accepts God's "pardoning love," he or she enters into a transformational process of salvation.

The Articles of Religion of The Methodist Church make the same point. Article XX - Of the One Oblation of Christ, Finished Upon the Cross affirms the salvific act of crucifixion and resurrection of Christ for salvation for all persons. The added Article "Of Sanctification" states that position in other words. The Confession of Faith of the Evangelical United Brethren Church echoes the beliefs stated in the doctrinal statements of The Methodist Church (see particularly Articles VIII, IX, XI, and XII).

While these statements of doctrine state that salvation is AVAILABLE to all persons, they stop short of saying that salvation is GUARANTEED to all persons. There is the stated or implied condition that, while God's grace is necessary for salvation and that humankind cannot in any way attain salvation without God, that there is certainly an element of awareness and cooperation on our part to order our lives after the image of Christ if we have the capacity to do so.

The answer seems to be that they do not believe in universal salvation, and these are the liberal Methodists, not the conservative ones.

3) "Again, not achieving salvation doesn't have to mean that they believe hell exists as a literal place of eternal torment; it could mean something vague like "spending eternity without God" or else annihilation after death." I've been trying to make clear that I don't think this option--an afterlife that is neither Heaven nor Hell--exists within mainstream Christian theology (unless you count purgatory/limbo in Catholicism). I was always taught to see Heaven not as a super-privileged place where only the exceptionally righteous can end up, but as a better world-to-come where most, if not all of us will go. (My dad was a Calvinist and my church was semi-Calvinist; when we learned about the predestination doctrine, we were always told that "it might be everybody" who will end up in Heaven.) I'm tempted to use the word "catch-all" for Heaven, because that's really how I've been taught to think about it in the various churches I've attended. Then again, they haven't been the mean conservative churches; maybe those guys think differently.

So yeah, my point here is that all Christians I know of basically think it's Heaven or Hell for everyone. The theology gets picked apart piece by piece in these circles, so if there were some "option three," people would have written a lot about it, what it could be, etc. As far as I know, they haven't.

I've actually come across the belief in annihilation several times, although I don't know how many people subscribe to it. I also did read a very disappointing thread on a UCC forum (the most liberal of the liberal Christians!) expressing uncertainty about or disbelief in universal salvation. I thought surely the UCC would be very much in favor of that, but apparently it's not across the board.

[chiccy]

Thanks again, Chiccy.

You're welcome! It was fun :)

But don't you think that the fact that you had to dig deep into their material reflects the fact that they don't openly and proudly assert that people who reject their deity can attain a positive afterlife? I find it encouraging that the information is there at all, but it seems like it's deeply buried in a pile of other information.

TBH, the main obstacles to getting this information were that many of the official denominational sites are really incomplete and/or badly organized. Once I got to the motherlodes of nitty-gritty theological information (if they existed) on each site, it was just a matter of searching that. That part was sometimes quick, but sometimes it took awhile. In the latter cases, I think it was more because these churches have a LOT of stuff written on a LOT of topics than because they are trying to bury anything.

If you look at the official statements like the one I posted from the main Methodist site, they do expressly say that faith in Jesus Christ is required for salvation. And here, in the section titled "Does the United Methodist Church Believe in Universal Salvation?"

I guess what I've learned from this is that the Methodists have multiple factions that believe different things on this question--hence the sign in the OP--but on the whole, they are more conservative about it, as you've said. However, the Methodists are only one branch of Protestants (and they are not exclusively non-evangelical). It seems like most of the other non-evangelical branches are more liberal on this topic.

As we both agree, sometimes those liberal statements are vague, but I think the vagueness could be for a number of reasons, including legitimate uncertainty about what happens in the afterlife. Personally, I think honest uncertainty--as opposed to deliberate obfuscation, of course--is a great thing.

It's interesting to hear you mention annihilation. I haven't heard much about that. Looking it up, it seems that the people who believe in it consider it a quid pro quo for Hell, not a third option.

But actually, reading about it, I think I kinda believe in it rather than Hell, insofar as I believe that anyone is not going to Heaven. I've never really bought into the 'eternal torment' thing; it seems kind of histrionic and fake. But a kind of quiet extinguishing of the souls that do not merit to live on sounds a little more realistic to me.

(I understand that comment must all sound hopelessly out-there to an atheist; my amazing life partner is an atheist, and I know if I tried saying stuff like that to him, we would not be on the same wavelength!)

ETA: For some reason I'm unable to quote you by name. Maybe it's because of the underscore? Hmm... Anyway, the above quotes are all QAF_Rocks.

[CanadianHippie]

But Canadian Hippie, my statement was hardly controversial.

Your original statement made rather impressive assumptions about what the woman being quoted was saying. You just assumed that she thought nice churches would turn Atheists into Christians when all she did was quote what other people were telling her. It's not her fault if those other people don't fit your definition of a proper Atheist.

[QAF_Rocks]

Your original statement made rather impressive assumptions about what the woman being quoted was saying. You just assumed that she thought nice churches would turn Atheists into Christians when all she did was quote what other people were telling her. It's not her fault if those other people don't fit your definition of a proper Atheist.

Okay, I really don't get the hostility. For the record, I did not accuse her of lying. I said I think she probably misunderstood the belief system of the people who were complimenting the sign and saying they would "probably reconsider" because of it, because that absolutely does not fit my experience of self-identified atheists. But who knows, maybe this church is surrounded by ignorant atheists who don't understand why putting up a sign won't change whether a god is real or imaginary.

I don't know if this will help, but here's an analogy:

Church of Scientology puts up a sign: "Xenu Loves Christians"

Church of Scientology then reports that "many Christians" are saying that they would "probably reconsider" their religion because of the sign.

Now does that make sense to you? Is it logical? Do you think that "many Christians" would respond that way? Unless you think that most Christians are idiots (I don't), then I think it's more likely that the Church of Scientology is either mistaken or (more likely for them) exaggerating the reaction.

You act like I'm accusing the woman of something nefarious. I don't think these are bad-hearted people. I'm glad they think their god likes atheists. I'm glad they put up a nice sign, but I'm not going to fall all over myself complimenting them. The sign doesn't make their belief system any more true or false than it was before they put up a sign. The truth of the religion doesn't depend on what kind of sign they put up. The WBC can put up "God Hates Fags" and the MCC can put up "God Loves Gays" and neither of them will change whether their god exists or not.

[QAF_Rocks]

Thanks, Chiccy. It's an interesting topic. :)

As we both agree, sometimes those liberal statements are vague, but I think the vagueness could be for a number of reasons, including legitimate uncertainty about what happens in the afterlife. Personally, I think honest uncertainty--as opposed to deliberate obfuscation, of course--is a great thing.

That's true, and I think it's okay as long as they're not using vagueness to avoid dealing with the implication of hell. So the liberal Protestants are mostly fine, but for churches that do assert the existence of any type of hell, I think they should be willing to defend it rather than adopt a passive "we can't know" stance when questioned about who goes there, because that allows them to avoid thinking about the moral implications of sending any person to a negative afterlife.

It's interesting to hear you mention annihilation. I haven't heard much about that. Looking it up, it seems that the people who believe in it consider it a quid pro quo for Hell, not a third option.

Yes, that's always been my impression. They can't reconcile themselves to the idea of eternal torment, so annihilation is sort of a less evil form of hell. It still sounds unfair from my perspective, but a lot of Christians think that people can force themselves to believe, so they think they're making a choice to be annihilated. But from my perspective, if someone happens to be born without a "god gene" and/or wasn't indoctrinated at an early enough age, they're out of luck through no fault of their own.

But actually, reading about it, I think I kinda believe in it rather than Hell, insofar as I believe that anyone is not going to Heaven. I've never really bought into the 'eternal torment' thing; it seems kind of histrionic and fake. But a kind of quiet extinguishing of the souls that do not merit to live on sounds a little more realistic to me.

(I understand that comment must all sound hopelessly out-there to an atheist; my amazing life partner is an atheist, and I know if I tried saying stuff like that to him, we would not be on the same wavelength!)

Heh, I think it's an interesting thought exercise, even though I haven't got anything invested in it. ;) What do you think determines whether souls have enough merit to live on? Is it based on what they do? Or what they believe? Or both?

[CanadianHippie]

Okay, I really don't get the hostility. For the record, I did not accuse her of lying. I said I think she probably misunderstood the belief system of the people who were complimenting the sign and saying they would "probably reconsider" because of it, because that absolutely does not fit my experience of self-identified atheists. But who knows, maybe this church is surrounded by ignorant atheists who don't understand why putting up a sign won't change whether a god is real or imaginary.

I don't know if this will help, but here's an analogy:

Church of Scientology puts up a sign: "Xenu Loves Christians"

Church of Scientology then reports that "many Christians" are saying that they would "probably reconsider" their religion because of the sign.

Now does that make sense to you? Is it logical? Do you think that "many Christians" would respond that way? Unless you think that most Christians are idiots (I don't), then I think it's more likely that the Church of Scientology is either mistaken or (more likely for them) exaggerating the reaction.

You act like I'm accusing the woman of something nefarious. I don't think these are bad-hearted people. I'm glad they think their god likes atheists. I'm glad they put up a nice sign, but I'm not going to fall all over myself complimenting them. The sign doesn't make their belief system any more true or false than it was before they put up a sign. The truth of the religion doesn't depend on what kind of sign they put up. The WBC can put up "God Hates Fags" and the MCC can put up "God Loves Gays" and neither of them will change whether their god exists or not.

What I don't get is your sudden hostility towards this woman for stating what she has experienced. And no "they really don't get it, do they? :roll: " is not a polite argument to what she said.

[QAF_Rocks]

What I don't get is your sudden hostility towards this woman for stating what she has experienced. And no "they really don't get it, do they? :roll: " is not a polite argument to what she said.

I am not hostile towards this woman, or this church. Yes, I was frustrated and annoyed by the comment. I was frustrated and annoyed because I've seen it so many times before. This is not the first time a Christian church has attempted to "reach out" to atheists while demonstrating that they have not the slightest idea what atheism means.

And yes, I don't think they "get it." I don't think they get it at all. But that doesn't mean I hate them or wish them ill. I wasn't responding to the woman personally. I don't think she cooked up a false statement for the press. With some churches, I might think that, but I don't think the United Methodists are going to do that. But she did release that statement to the press, and I view that statement with skepticism.

You haven't responded to my comments at all and are merely deflecting my questions and going back to my supposed hostility for this woman and her church. I have attempted to explain in detail why I think she may very well be mistaken if she says that "many atheists" are coming up to her and saying that they would "probably reconsider" because of the sign. You have not responded to any of that.

Even if a progressive or liberal church does something nice, that doesn't mean that I (or any other atheist) should have to fawn all over them. I'm glad these people aren't hateful fundies. I mean, look what board we're on. I'd rather there be a world filled with United Methodists than with the Duggars. But that doesn't mean that I'm not going to say something when they assert things that don't square up.

[QAF_Rocks]

And by the way, here's another example of the United Methodists "not getting it."

The billboard is being called a Godless billboard by the group sponsoring it, the United Coalition of Reason (United CoR). The Coalition has brought non-believing, free-thinking groups together to place the billboard and form a Northwest Arkansas branch of the group.

Members of the Northwest Arkansas Coalition of Reason say they didn't intend to attack religion or cause a stir with the Godless billboard.

"The message from the sign is to our people, but I suppose to let people know people can be good without believing in God," said co-founder of Fayetteville Free Thinkers Darel Henschell.

Henschell just wants to tune the community in to a belief that may strike a chord with some folks.

"Unbelievers exist in the community around them, among their coworkers, neighbors. family members and our society," Henschell said.

The group's billboard sits just above an ad for Rogers' Central United Methodist Church(CUMC).

"That was a complete coincidence. We didn't know that until we went and took a picture of the sign and said. Oh, we had no idea," said Henschell.

And neither Henschell, nor the church's pastor thinks it's a bad thing.

"That could be a metaphor for how secular people and church minded people can co-exist peacefully in our society," Henschell said.

"The first reaction is it breaks my heart," said CUMC Senior Pastor Carness Vaughan. "But on second thought, any opportunity to get people thinking about God is a good thing."

And whether you're a believer or not, Henschell says life is a solo you shouldn't have to play.

"That's the problem with people feeling isolated in the community like that. So, we wanted to open it up," Henschell said.

The billboard is just one aspect of the campaign. Four Ozark Regional Transit buses will display the advertisements on the side and rear.

Phil Pumphrey, Executive Director of Ozark Regional Transit(ORT) said the company accepted the advertisement at the reccomendation of the company's attorney. Pumphrey noted ORT does not endorse products, opinions, or beliefs portrayed in any of its bus advertisements.

http://nwahomepage.com/fulltext-news/?nxd_id=158342

Should I not be disappointed to see something like that? These are the liberal Methodists with supposedly "open hearts" and "open minds," yet his first reaction is that an atheist billboard breaks his heart. You know he wouldn't have dared to say that about a Buddhist or Hindu billboard, but he obviously thinks it's fine and dandy to tell the press that he finds the mere existence of atheists heartbreaking.

[chiccy]

Yes, that's always been my impression. They can't reconcile themselves to the idea of eternal torment, so annihilation is sort of a less evil form of hell. It still sounds unfair from my perspective, but a lot of Christians think that people can force themselves to believe, so they think they're making a choice to be annihilated. But from my perspective, if someone happens to be born without a "god gene" and/or wasn't indoctrinated at an early enough age, they're out of luck through no fault of their own.

Heh, I think it's an interesting thought exercise, even though I haven't got anything invested in it. ;) What do you think determines whether souls have enough merit to live on? Is it based on what they do? Or what they believe? Or both?

QAF_Rocks, in response to your question...just like they all say, "I don't know." I'd prefer to believe that everyone goes to Heaven or has eternal life or whatever. But my belief is that it's up to God. To the extent that I believe in a loving God (which I don't always/don't entirely), it would definitely depend on how a person behaves, not what a person believes. The exception would be if someone is so truly ignorant of the consequences of their behavior as to make them innocent of it (someone with severe mental illness who commits crimes, for example).

And speaking of "crimes," I don't think your average petty thief or even your average murderer is going to Hell. I think that if it (or annihilation) exists, it is reserved for people like Hitler.

My guess would be that many "kind atheists" would be in line for Heaven far ahead of the fundies and other supposedly righteous people.

[QAF_Rocks]

QAF_Rocks, in response to your question...just like they all say, "I don't know." I'd prefer to believe that everyone goes to Heaven or has eternal life or whatever. But my belief is that it's up to God. To the extent that I believe in a loving God (which I don't always/don't entirely), it would definitely depend on how a person behaves, not what a person believes. The exception would be if someone is so truly ignorant of the consequences of their behavior as to make them innocent of it (someone with severe mental illness who commits crimes, for example).

And speaking of "crimes," I don't think your average petty thief or even your average murderer is going to Hell. I think that if it (or annihilation) exists, it is reserved for people like Hitler.

My guess would be that many "kind atheists" would be in line for Heaven far ahead of the fundies and other supposedly righteous people.

Thanks for elaborating! I obviously don't believe in an afterlife, but I do find the evolution of religion extremely fascinating, particularly the move away from hell-belief. I wonder if it has anything to do with pluralism in the United States. We're an extremely religious country, but over the past 50 years, it's become much more common to meet and befriend people who don't belong to the same religion. So a young person might grow up in Christianity, but they have friends at school and in the workplace who don't come from Judeo-Christian backgrounds at all. So, as they get older, maybe it's more common for them to question the fairness of eternal punishment for not believing in a particular god. I think what we see is an expansion of salvation/heaven/positive afterlife beliefs, but still with some measure of punishment for the "really bad" people based on their actions. You mentioned Hitler, who of course is a prime example of someone who wouldn't be considered to deserve a positive afterlife. I think even the evangelicals are jumping (ever so slightly) on this train, what with Rob Bell's Love Wins kicking up such a firestorm of controversy last year.

[chiccy]

Thanks for elaborating! I obviously don't believe in an afterlife, but I do find the evolution of religion extremely fascinating, particularly the move away from hell-belief. I wonder if it has anything to do with pluralism in the United States. We're an extremely religious country, but over the past 50 years, it's become much more common to meet and befriend people who don't belong to the same religion. So a young person might grow up in Christianity, but they have friends at school and in the workplace who don't come from Judeo-Christian backgrounds at all. So, as they get older, maybe it's more common for them to question the fairness of eternal punishment for not believing in a particular god. I think what we see is an expansion of salvation/heaven/positive afterlife beliefs, but still with some measure of punishment for the "really bad" people based on their actions. You mentioned Hitler, who of course is a prime example of someone who wouldn't be considered to deserve a positive afterlife. I think even the evangelicals are jumping (ever so slightly) on this train, what with Rob Bell's Love Wins kicking up such a firestorm of controversy last year.

I think you're right that religious pluralism--and especially mixed families--are definitely contributors to the trend of theological liberalism on a personal basis. Now, it's less, "My family is Christian, everyone around me is Christian, ergo Christianity--as my community interprets it--is correct," and more, "Hmm, some people I know believe this; others believe this; and still others believe nothing--I wonder what is really true?" IMO, this philosophical shift is a very positive thing.

I think one reason people cling to beliefs in Heaven and (especially) Hell is that it provides the comforting idea that all scores will be settled in the end. How is it possible to bear the fact that Hitler existed, if not to imagine he will--somewhere, somehow--receive his due punishment? Obviously, some people find ways to be zen about it...but others need that idea of retribution in order to think there is some kind of 'right order' which governs things. I can imagine this would especially be an issue with families of murder victims, etc. Ideally, one forgives the perpetrator of the griefs in one's life...but forgiveness can be one of the hardest things there is to do. Hence, Hell. Just a thought.

[QAF_Rocks]

I think one reason people cling to beliefs in Heaven and (especially) Hell is that it provides the comforting idea that all scores will be settled in the end. How is it possible to bear the fact that Hitler existed, if not to imagine he will--somewhere, somehow--receive his due punishment? Obviously, some people find ways to be zen about it...but others need that idea of retribution in order to think there is some kind of 'right order' which governs things. I can imagine this would especially be an issue with families of murder victims, etc. Ideally, one forgives the perpetrator of the griefs in one's life...but forgiveness can be one of the hardest things there is to do. Hence, Hell. Just a thought.

True, and the desire for reward and punishment makes sense when you take into account human nature. Obviously, people aren't born believing in heaven and hell, but every parent is no doubt familiar with the cry of "It's not fair!" coming from an aggrieved child. People want life to be fair. When things aren't fair, they'll kick up a fuss about it. Although, on some level, it seems like a very childish reaction to me. Don't most parents respond with "Life isn't fair!" when their children are complaining? So if Hitler wasn't punished for being evil, that's not fair, but life isn't fair. Still, I think many people want punishment and to enact revenge on people who step so far outside the social contract.