So when Jerry Falwell dies, will he go to heaven?

[Modem Butterfly]

Xians believe that after they die, if they've believed in Jesus Christ and are truly repentant, they'll go to heaven. Do you believe that when Falwell dies, which looks to be sooner rather than later, that he'll go to heaven? Why or why not?

[villager]

1. hell no.

n/t

[Itascapark]

2. Heavens, no...hell, yes

[benburch]

3. Not a chance.

There is a special pool of boiling shit just for Jerry.

[Modem Butterfly]

5. What did he do in 70 years that warrents an eternity of punishment?

Just asking.

[coloradodem2005]

11. Not an eternity.

Maybe not anyway. But a good long time to say the least.

[rkc3]

12. Aside from telling us that America deserved the attacks of 9/11

because of feminists, homosexuals, and whatever other bullshit he added to the end of his ramblings - I'm not sure what else you need.

[Modem Butterfly]

13. That warrents an eternity in Hell?

Really?

[rkc3]

No that was just icing on the cake - spreading hate, lies, and fear

under the guise of being a religious man is what really gets him in there.

[Modem Butterfly]

21. Granted, that's pretty bad...

...but it's hard to believe that these actions warrant the same punishment as Jeffrey Dahmer, Adolf Hitler, and John Wayne Gacy.

[benburch]

14. Pretended to preach the Gospel

While worshipping Mammon.

[wtbymark]

4. no

the energy that was him will disipate within hours and then his body will decay, just like everyone else, the only thing to be said is that he made one hell of a fool out of himself while he was alive.

[coloradodem2005]

6. While this sounds unforgiving...

...I hope that he does not go to heaven. At least not for a long time to answer for his sins.

[Modem Butterfly]

7. Do you believe that one can progress from Hell to Heaven?

[Goblinmonger]

8. If he goes there

it will make my stay in hell that much more enjoyable.

(a reference to Huck Finn when he asks the Widow Douglas if she will be there and decides it isn't that great a place to be).

[Modem Butterfly]

10. It is a pretty strong argument for not going to heaven.

[pf99]

9. I believe in universal salvation

So yes Falwell will go to heaven but not after spending some serious time in "purgatory" to "pay" for his many sins.

[realisticphish]

18. im leaning towards that one

im still deciding my religious views, but that strikes close

:hippie: The Incorrigible Democrat

[Modem Butterfly]

22. Is there anything that warrents not being saved?

For instance, does Hitler qualify for salvation?

[blackcat77]

36. It's not about what you do, it's about what you believe.

As I said in another note, if you believe that Jesus was who he said he was, and if you believe that his sacrifice would atone for your own sins, and accept that sacrifice, then it is sufficient for ANY evil that a person has done.

That being said, there is still a temporal cost for sins which must be paid.

I started out as a fundamentalist after being saved at a revival meeting when I was 18 years old. I stuck with them for about 10 years or so, but there were so many questions which they couldn't answer, among which was the point that you bring up. Yes, belief can save any of us, but justice demands that your wrongdoing be accounted for. And that's what purgatory is about.

If you did your very best to follow Christ throughout your life, you would have very little to account for. OTOH, someone like Hitler might believe unto salvation, but there's still that matter of millions of people who died at his hands. The first person would need only a short time to be purified whereas Hitler might take a million years. This idea was a huge factor in my decision to follow Catholicism...

[MemphisTiger]

15. Only Jesus knows for sure

[Mistress Quickly]

16. Only one being knows

And I don't think they post on DU.

[realisticphish]

20. sure they do

they have a picture of a little dog as their avatar ;)


:hippie: The Incorrigible Democrat

[colonel odis]

17. i don't know rev. falwell's relationship with god, but i don't see how

he can say the despicable things he does, preach hate and divisiveness instead of the love of christ, and still feel as though he's doing the lord's work. but according to his own beliefs, he will have to answer for the life he's led.

if it weren't for the power of television and sucking up to politicians, people like falwell and pat robertson would be nothing more than friend chicken eating, seersucker suit wearing, running around with the church secretary, two-bit country preachers capable of influencing nothing bigger than a backwards ass town in alabama somewhere.

i wonder if rev. falwell remembers that the book of james says church leaders will be judged by a higher standard than the rest of us. perhaps he remembers but feels like his years of public piety will buy him brownie points in the hereafter.

all i know is, i'd sure hate to be him come judgement day.

[arwalden]

19. He'll Just Be Dead.

He won't care anymore because he's dead. But I'll probably smile because the zealot Christians will have one less voice to lead the charge and motivate their faith-based hatred and bigotry.

Heaven is just a security-blanket concept to comfort the living who cannot accept the finality of their own mortality, or the mortality of their loved ones.

Imagining that someone goes to hell gives believers the emotional "revenge" they need to feel that justice has been done (even though they were impotent to exact it themselves and that it did not happen to the other person during their life.)

Yeah... I can definitely understand the satisfaction someone might get from imagining Falwell being sodomized hell. (Take it boy!)

[Modem Butterfly]

24. Now THAT'S a vivid image!

;)

I think we're all worm food, too, but it's interesting to hear from others who don't on the thorny problem of someone who was more venal than evil.

[madinmaryland]

23. But if there is no heaven or hell,

then what will happen?

Nothing?

:shrug:

[Modem Butterfly]

25. Well, that's not exactly true

He could be reincarnated. Or he could be a tackling dummy in Asgaard. Or he could be sent to Hades. Or he could become a ghost (maybe he'll haunt Arwalden). Or he could spend eternity getting thumped on the head by Allah. Or maybe he'll go to the Chinese Hell of Being Boiled in Oil. The possibilities are literally endless.

Of course, I'm most interested in a Xian perspective on this, which is why I used the terms "heaven" and "hell".

[madinmaryland]

28. The possibilities are endless.

At least as far as the imagination can take you. No one knows for sure what happens. Does make for great speculation. So my speculation is for an eternal dirt nap.

[Tux]

37. LOL

Reincarnate. Falwell may reincarnate as a cow at a meat-packing factory. He leads others like a herd so it makes sense that he would be part of a herd.

[madinmaryland]

38. Well, thats one way to make me a vegetarian.

no falwell burgers for me.
:puke:

[blackcat77]

26. It's not about being good or bad, it's about.....

...accepting the sacrifice of Jesus for atonement of your sins.

And I know that kind of remark draws a lot of negative comments from DUers, but it's at the core of Christianity. You cannot be good enough to earn heaven, and you cannot be so bad as to be beyond the redemptive powers of Christ's sacrifice.

[Modem Butterfly]

27. So Falwell dies, and goes to Heaven. Gahndi dies and goes to Hell?

[blackcat77]

29. That depends on the faith that each of them have.

I don't believe that man can define -- or limit -- God. If So-and-So says that HIS God is the "true God" and everybody else's is false, I'd say that person would be deluded.

God is bigger than any man can conceive -- there's no reason why Falwell's perception of God and Gandhi's perception of God couldn't both be real and both be efficatious.

(edit: added "perception of" twice. Humans can't know the totality of God -- all we can do is try to act on what we can understand.)

[Az]

30. Accepting Jesus

Thats the trick isn't it? Its a bit of a conundrum. Considering that what we know of Jesus comes from words and those words can be interpretted. The real question isn't whether you claim to believe in Jesus but whether the Jesus you believe in is the right one.

Accepting Jesus means accepting his teachings. But interpretation and understanding of them can make a world of difference. If I told you that Jesus told his followers to sell all their posessions and go out and arm themself's with weapons bought with the money would believe it was the true words of Jesus? Would you accept this teaching and follow through on it?

This is the thing. Falwell and his ilk (what a fun word) may very well believe they believe in Jesus. They may believe they have accepted Jesus. But from your view they have accepted a false idea. A false idea is certainly not Jesus. Correct? Then how does one know they have accepted the correct Jesus? How can you know you are on the right path?

Before you stand two doors. One door leads to damnation. The other door leads to salvation. You have to choose one of the doors. They are not labeled. Which door is the right door? Many people are standing around the doors insisting that the one they have chosen is the right door. Some tell legends of someone that came back through one of the doors and told everyone which door is the correct one. But he is gone now and those who claim to believe him still argue over which door is the right one.

Its a bit of a pickle isn't it?

[blackcat77]

31. A Christian should be Christ-like

The accounts in the bible tell us what Jesus did as well as what he said, so we're given an example to follow. And the bible also says that we know who is a real believe and who isn't by their fruits. So if a person breeds strife and discord and hatred, the odds are that he's not a Christian. But if love is the result of a person's words and deeds, then he probably is a follower of Christ.

So you can't really say the doors are unmarked. And additionally, the "doors" analogy is sort of deceptive. Even though a lot of fundies believe it to be the case, salvation is not a one-time decision, but rather the process of a lifetime's decisions, one small step at a time.

The bible talks about "a lamp unto your feet." A lamp won't light up everything off to the horizon, but what it will do is give you the knowledge to take one good step, and then another, and another. Those steps are what leads to salvation.

Didn't mean to preach, but your note deserved a thoughtful response.

[Az]

33. What happens when the meaning of love is changed

First I appreciate your response. This is always a tricky subject and civility goes a long way to making it productive. Thanks :D

The problem with looking at things in the way you suggest is it is still open to interpretation. Its a very situational issue. What you and I may consider to be good may seem to another to be horribly corrupt. I embrace (as I expect you do as well) the notion of tolerance. But consider this notion from the mind of someone such as Falwell. What we are tolerant of in their world view is evil. We accept and embrace evil.

It comes down to Falwell proclaims the vision he has as the correct one. Those that follow his thinking believe that any deviance from that vision is embracing evil. Tolerance? Why should they be tolerant of evil? They truly believe that liberals and their notions are evil. So all our talk of compassion and reaching out to others simply smacks of corruption and the road to ruin in their eyes.

[blackcat77]

35. You should be tolerant toward all *people* but not all ideas

This is where I think some people get it wrong -- we should always be willing to listen to someone's point of view. That's the respect that we owe everybody simply on the basis of their humanity. And we should not harm other people for the same reason.

But we are under no obligation to agree with someone else or to support them if the idea they are following goes against our beliefs. There's an old fundie cliche which goes, "if you don't believe in something, you'll fall for anything."

I personally believe that Falwell's vision of Christianity is a bit misguided and way too narrow. I do my part by letting people know what I think and by backing up what I say out of the bible. Then people can make an informed decision.

The alternative is to just fling a bunch of hatred at people like Falwell and look very bad for doing so. If the more liberal branch of Christianity is ever going to rise to the front, it will be with honey, not vinegar. Our hatred of people who disagree with us is just giving the other side a powerful weapon to use against us, and making them seem reasonable by comparison. Yes, I know that behind their mild words is the worst kind of theological hatemongering, but when you're dealing with the unchurched, those mild words will leave a strong impression.

So again, it gets back to following Jesus' example. He sure didn't go along with anything that the Saducess and Pharisees were doing or saying, but he never allowed himself to lose control and swap raw emotion for truth and reason. We should do the same.

[onager]

34. And here's one good reason why it's such a pickle...

"As theologians, the Protestant reformers replaced the authority of the Catholic Church with the authority of the Bible, which they opened to the public.

The inevitable but unforeseen result was that every individual who could read thought God could communicate directly with him.

Unfortunately, as recorded in the Bible, the voice of God often rambles incoherently like that of a slightly schizoid manic-depressive with delusions of grandeur.

Worse yet, his Protestant readers promptly splintered into numerous sects which agreed only on one point—they wanted to be separate. By 1650, there were 180 sects, all based on the Bible and each more dogmatically intolerant than the next...

Altogether, the Reformation was a blight on hope and a boon to bigotry. Its incongruities inspired outrageous persecutions and unreasonable wars. Luther would have been stunned and horrified at the results of his revolution, which bequeathed a legacy of violence and uncertainty in a world ruled by profit and sword rather than love and understanding.

God remained inscrutable but was now unrestrained by either logic or common sense and devoted to divine domination rather than Christ-like peace. Free of scruples, the Protestant God became Machiavellian in His public capacity and condoned many things in business and affairs of state which were considered immoral in the private lives of individuals."

From The Story Of Stupidity by James Welles.

Link to the whole book: http://www.stupidity.com/story1final/

[quiet.american]

32. As an aside, the blanket statement about Christians is not true

Maybe it was meant to be tongue in cheek, however, like any other religion, there are myriad aspects and expressions of the Christian path, with some devotees holding their personal relationship with God as the principle thing.

That said, if it be true that "by their fruits ye shall know them," definitely, NO, Falwell is not going to the land of eternal milk and honey -- at least not until he "gets understanding."

[Lydia Leftcoast]

39. It's not for any human being to decide

:shrug:

[Kire]

40. If he dies now, he will not be fully repentant.

But, I believe miracles can still happen. And believe me, and anyone repenting is definitely be a miracle.

Edit: I wonder if I'll ever have to repent for posting this. (Just trying to cover my bases, here).

[Modem Butterfly]

46. How do you know?

How can one tell if another is truly repentant?

[Kire]

56. I probably won't know.

Only God does, IMHO. I'm just saying it's possible.

Similarly, how will you know if he's not?

[Stunster]

41. The beauty of the Catholic doctrine of Purgatory

is that one can imagine folk like Falwell spending
1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
years there, and then some. ;-)

[More Than A Feeling]

42. Yes, because everyone will, eventually

I am somewhat unorthodox on this matter, as I don't think that the so-called "final judgment" will be all that final. Furthermore, if he repents in his heart, God will forgive him.

[Selwynn]

43. I don't know, nor do I care.

What happens to Jerry Falwell after he dies is really unimportant to me in every conceivable way.

[Modem Butterfly]

45. Okay. So why respond?

Seriously, if you don't care, what's the point?

[Selwynn]

47. Because I can.

[Modem Butterfly]

48. It's your time. Waste it as you will.

[Name removed]

51. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Modem Butterfly]

52. Whatever, Selwyn

You also seem to fail to grasp that not knowing or caring what happens to Jerry Falwell when he dies is not the same thing as not caring about the fact you act the question.

"I don't know, nor do I care. What happens to Jerry Falwell after he dies is really unimportant to me in every conceivable way."

To which I replied by asking you why you responded at all. And you replied:"Because I can"

Now, you want to go back and say, "My point, which I guess I should learn to make more explicitly and not just assume people are smart, is that I don't think anyone can know the answer to this question and that both believers and non-believers alike would probably be a lot better off when they stop asking questions that can't possibly be answered."

Selwyn, when you don't make yourself clear it is not the fault of the reader. The error is yours. You said nothing of the sort to indicate that you had any thoughts beyond "I don't know, nor do I care." and when given an opportunity to clarify, you responded in a similar vein.

Your inability to express yourself is not my fault, nor is it an indication of my intelligence. If you regret your comments you should use the edit function, not attempt to recast history with yourself in the role of the poor, misunderstood Selwyn.

[Selwynn]

54. Excuse me - there was no breaking of the rules in my previous post.

As I said before, and I will restate again. I don't need your permission to post.

It is in fact not necessarily the fault of the author or the reader. Sometimes it is the fault of the author, when the point is not made clear. Sometimes it is the fault of the reader, when the point is so stunningly obvious and yet is deliberately ignored.

I've said more than plenty of thoughts - directly to you - on multiple occasions, which should (and I'm sure actually do) clue you in perfectly well to exactly what I meant.

While it remains true, that I should be explicit every time and not just assume people are smart - it is probably more accurate to say I shouldn't assume that people are intuitive, which is slightly different.

You can go cry to a moderator again now.
Sel

[Modem Butterfly]

55. Is this Xian discernment?

I've said more than plenty of thoughts - directly to you - on multiple occasions, which should (and I'm sure actually do) clue you in perfectly well to exactly what I meant.

I'm not a mind-reader. I refuse to even try. I will respond to what you actually post, not what you wish you had posted and not what I think you meant.

You can go cry to a moderator again now.

You really shouldn't assume. Apparently someone other than myself thought your comments were over the line. But I did take your advice and asked the Mod to lock this thread. I'm sick of getting into semantic pissing contests with you. While you may enjoy the attention, I just end up bored.

[Selwynn]

60. Alright. You're right. I was out of line. I apologize.

I just got back from a walk - clearing my head. It's been a bad day, and I have unfairly taken it out on you. It's not right, so I apologize. I can't go edit any posts now becuase the times expired, but please accept my apology for being out of line.

Sel

[Selwynn]

44. PS - your blanket statement about "Xians" is wrong.

It is decidedly not the case that all Christians believe that after they die, if they've believe in Jesus Christ and are truly repentant, they'll go to heaven.

[GOPBasher]

49. I don't know. Only God knows. n/t

[Igel]

50. I'm a Xian, and don't believe that when people die they

die. No flitting about in heaven or being stuck with hot pokers in hell. No cleansing of purgatory. No transmigration of souls.

He dies. Then he's dead. No immortal soul.

You know, resurrection of the body and all that kind of fun stuff from the ancient creeds? Never struck me as sane to propose an immortal soul *and* a resurrection of the body--after heaven, who'd want earth?

[Modem Butterfly]

53. Interesting

Do you believe in the resurrection of Christ? How about his divinity? And if there is no afterlife, what do you believe is the point of following Christ?

[onager]

57. I'm glad you asked that

It seems really hard to get a definition of "Christian beliefs" here at DU.

Part of the problem, I guess, is the plethora of different Christian beliefs.

Another, at least here at DU, seems to be the habit of believers making up the theology as they go along. Ask about "belief" and you'll probably get a long-winded screed that muddies the water by dragging in philosophy, metaphysics and quantum mechanics.

It seems, at minimum, that a statement of Christian belief would include something like: "I believe a virgin gave birth to a guy who came back from the dead."

[Modem Butterfly]

58. This might be an interesting thread

[Az]

59. Clarification

Not all Christians are hung up on the notion of a virgin birth. There are some credible arguments that virgin was a mistranslation.

I suspect that the critical thinking behind identifying a Christian is the Sacrifice. I am willing to bet that there are selfprofessing Christians out there that are skeptical of the rising from the dead thing.

[Selwynn]

61. Check out Bishop John Shebly Spong

..the guy is pretty much skeptical about the entire nicene creed (to his credit, in my opinion)

[Igel]

63. I might be willing to go along with the "Christ as Sacrifice"

being the litmus test. It's really the central unifying theme to a lot of variants of Christianity. But I think there's a group of people calling themselves Christian that believe he was just a Really, Really Good Person and Example. No divinity, no sacrifice.

I don't like squabbling over definitions. At least not this one.

[Igel]

62. Yep, but I believe that when he was dead he wasn't off

harrowing hell or whatever it's called. Resurrected the third day, ascended to heaven to be with the father. I figure if he needed to be resurrected, why should we be any different? Assuming that "resurrection" doesn't mean something like "putting your immortal soul back into a body".

I guess the church I was in (and whose doctrines I still vaguely believe) would have answered that when we're dead, we're dead. But God will resurrect us to judgment. At which point those judged worthy will be given eternal life, and those that aren't won't. There was speculation about a real opportunity being given to those that didn't have a decent chance the first time round, but they admitted it had weak scriptural support; I thought it possible, the scriptures involved didn't have a good interpretation, so why not? In any event, it boiled down to "you can't force people to be godly, and God's decided he won't."

Who's in which group was a completely verboten topic--we believed we'd be in the "eternal salvation" camp, but didn't think it was a forgone conclusion. No "once saved, always saved" doctrine. This was certainly strong motivation for believers to behave--be good to one another, to people outside the church, to be active in the community, etc., etc. Saved entirely by faith, but also believing faith without works is dead. No evangelistic campaigns, at all. A very strange dynamic; the ministers forgot they weren't human after a while, and the organization split and more than half the members scattered.

Obviously no doctrine of universal salvation here, but it certainly leaves free will intact and disposes of eternal punishment. I've never seen a reason to go back to change what I believed, it's really a moot point. If I'm wrong, I'll find out upon death ... or not.

[CrownPrinceBandar]

64. Locking.

The reports of Rev. Falwell's demise have been greatly exaggerated.

Thanks for understanding.