Christianity, Religion and Philosophy, Episode VI!

[waggawerewolf27]

Agreed, Ithilwen.

IlF, are you saying, then, that to prove or disprove science, you have to use up-to-date scientific methods, and not rely only on history, geography, archaeology, or literature? If so, you are right. Because you also have to use science and scientific method to prove history, geography, archaeology and also literature, where it is applicable, to verify the names and places in the Bible. Similarly, you can't dismiss science simply because it seems to disagree with your theology. Or dismiss theology, either, because the Bible, which did include all the archaeology, history, geography, and literature as we know it, did not include the specifics of science as we know it today. Apples and oranges, you see.

Look at all the hoo-hah over Richard III over the years. This was a king who was a multiple murderer, a deformed arch-villain immortalised by Shakespeare, and who was summarily discarded after his defeat at Bosworth in 1483. In 2012, a skeleton was found in a car-park, which after much research, was found to be where a pre-Henry VIII priory had been located. Examining the skeleton by DNA evidence provided by a Canadian carpenter, proved that the skeleton was indeed Richard III, and that he really did have scoliosis of the spine as alleged by Shakespeare. Do we then accept Shakespeare's play without question as the truth, and the whole truth, demonising Richard III wholeheartedly, because he was found to be right about Richard's spinal condition? Or do we take a more measured view of that king, realising that those nephews he allegedly murdered were dead meat anyway? Or do we say that Shakespeare, who wrote a somewhat libellous play about Macbeth, always must be taken as writing factually, when I, at least, am aware that the real Macbeth, who killed Duncan in fair battle, as well as Macbeth's stepson, were both murdered by Malcolm Canmore, his pro-English successor on the Scottish throne?

As I was trying to say in a previous post, you can't just pick up a bit of broken china in Jerusalem and say it is from Biblical times, just because you found it in the right area. You have to get the china tested first. Chances are, the broken bit of china came from the restaurant down the road, when someone bumped into the waiter last night, and not from Solomon's temple or David's palace, even if you found the china in the right area. And you can't use the modernity of the bit of china, and the relative absence of ancient pottery to prove that there was no person called King David, or that David's palace never existed. Because, guess what, Eilat Mazar, an Israeli archaeologist, actually did find David's palace last year in Jerusalem.

I guess the same applies to evolutionary theory. If you want to reconcile the Biblical account with the science you really have to know what you are doing and saying about both science and the Bible, quoting both. Science measures to the millisecond what a day might be on this planet. The Bible tells us how to treasure those days we are given, organised in a seven day week.

I'd agree wholeheartedly with W4J that Dan Brown's Da Vinci code was no more or less than the fiction it purports to be. I've been a bit bemused by people getting upset about a trashy adventure novel like that one. Jesus didn't get married as far as we are told in either the Gospels, the letters of Paul, or in Josephus or Tacitus, the non-Christian sources for His existence. The Crucifixion did take place as stated in the Bible, and there hasn't really been a long range conspiracy involving Christ's descendants. The Knights Templar were a religious order which, having delved profitably in banking, attracted the envy and enmity of the French King, Philip IV, AKA Philip, the not so Fair, who used foul means to divest the Knights Templar of their wealth, sending the French Grand Master to be burned at the stake. There is a link between Knights Templar, who fled to Scotland and freemasonry, but it doesn't seem they had anything to do with the Rosslyn Chapel, south of Edinburgh.

Da Vinci did paint the Lord's supper and the Mona Lisa, and yes, the Mona Lisa, at any rate, which I've seen, is a lovely portrait, though I doubt there are hidden meanings in either painting. The Lord's supper painting, however beautiful, does not necessarily depict how the Lord's supper might have looked in the Biblical account. Indiana Jones and the last crusade did get something right in that the cup used by Jesus Christ was probably an everyday sort of cup for those times, and not made of precious metals or Royal Daulton china. On the other hand, Cecil B de Mille's classic film, The Ten Commandments, has Charlton Heston wielding two stone tablets carved with the Hebrew characters used today, and not the Proto Sinaiatic/Canaanite script that would have been probably used by 13th century BC Hebrew escapees.

It seems that fiction and fact need to be disentangled all the time, and that even facts are not what they seem or what people might expect. It doesn't do to be so fixated on single trees that it is impossible to see the hugeness of the forest.

[King_Erlian]

I was thinking on my way to work today... In the opening chapters of Genesis, it says that God commanded Adam and Eve not to eat from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Assuming that this was historical fact, why did he put the Tree there in the first place? Was he just testing them for the sake of testing them? If he never intended Man to have the knowledge of good and evil, why didn't he leave the Tree out of the Garden?

I can only answer from one of my own experiences which parallels your question. Years ago, I made a cake for dessert that evening, icing it as well. My two mischievous children watched me interestedly, and when I finished, I told them not to touch the cake, left on the sideboard whilst I hung out the washing. They knew that the cake was meant for when Daddy came home, when we could all eat it. But by the time I finished the laundry, I found the cake with a spiralling ridge where one of my little darlings had been helping herself to the icing on the cake. It was easy to find the culprit, due to the remains of icing on her fingers and around her mouth.

That's a fair point, but it doesn't cover everything. Your children knew that the reason you'd baked the cake was so that the whole family could enjoy it together when their father arrived home. God didn't give Adam and Eve a reason why the Tree was in the Garden. He warned them that they would die if they ate the fruit but didn't explain why the Tree had to be there - maybe it helped to nourish the other trees and plants in the Garden, or maybe God would have allowed them to eat the fruit at a later time. Also, the consequences of your children dipping their fingers in the icing was that it spoilt a planned family celebration. The consequences of Adam and Eve eating the fruit from the Tree was all the suffering and death of Mankind. It seems God was taking an enormous risk.

[Ithilwen]

The consequences of Adam and Eve eating the fruit from the Tree was all the suffering and death of Mankind. It seems God was taking an enormous risk.

I think God probably put the tree there in order to create free will. Obedience to God means nothing if there is no possible way to disobey.


~Riella

[waggawerewolf27]

That's a fair point, but it doesn't cover everything. Your children knew that the reason you'd baked the cake was so that the whole family could enjoy it together when their father arrived home. God didn't give Adam and Eve a reason why the Tree was in the Garden. He warned them that they would die if they ate the fruit but didn't explain why the Tree had to be there - maybe it helped to nourish the other trees and plants in the Garden, or maybe God would have allowed them to eat the fruit at a later time. Also, the consequences of your children dipping their fingers in the icing was that it spoilt a planned family celebration. The consequences of Adam and Eve eating the fruit from the Tree was all the suffering and death of Mankind. It seems God was taking an enormous risk.

No, only one child offended, not both. It didn't spoil a celebration other than the nice family dinner I was planning for that evening to include their father when he came home from work. Just as God told Adam and Eve they'd die if they ate the fruit, I'd threatened my children with the Order of the Wooden Spoon if they helped themselves, and in those days when corporal punishment of erring children was acceptable and expected, one of the two did not take me seriously. As God would have expected to be taken seriously. But as I missed, and the wooden spoon broke on furniture, she did not suffer quite the consequences she had been threatened with. Other than an absence of a replacement cake until I could find the money for more ingredients and another wooden spoon to assemble them with.

Yes the tree might have been there for the exercise of free will, for protection, as in the Magician's Nephew, or because it helped sustain the life of its surroundings, as even non fruit-bearing trees are wont to do. But the tree didn't repel the serpent if protection had been the aim. And I think there are other ways of exercising free will other than listening to a serpent and helping oneself to the fruit. Adam and Eve could have fetched God and explained about the snake in the tree, asking Him just the questions you, yourself are asking now, and at what point, if at any time, could they eat it. It could also be argued that Adam & Eve also didn't suffer quite the consequences they originally expected, since Eve did not instantly drop dead the minute she took a mouthful of the apple, unlike Snow White.

[Puddleglum]

A couple points before I go off to bed.
wagga. What you mentioned earler about the flood accounts reminded me about something I had read of Noah's son Shem still being alive when Abram(Abraham) started his trip from Ur. The Mrs. did some quick math in the who-begat-who part of Genesis, and sure enough Shem lived 110 years after the birth of said patriarch. So I know that there is no Biblical account of Abraham ever visiting Great (multiplied) Grandad. But what better way of getting the story right but from somebody who was there?
Second thing.
master oliver. I must back W4J on his belief that Nye has proven his inability to change his view despite the evidence. I submit his insistence on using the ice-core as evidence despite Hamm's already pointing out the depth at which the lost flight of fighters were found in Greenland would have placed them hundreds of years before they were forced to land on the ice.

[waggawerewolf27]

So I know that there is no Biblical account of Abraham ever visiting Great (multiplied) Grandad. But what better way of getting the story right but from somebody who was there?

Not in the Bible, itself. But there seems to be in the Talmud, a collection of Biblical stories and Jewish wisdom. And even if Abraham didn't go yarning with Shem, his own father might have done so, anyway, whether they told the world or not.

[Shadowlander]

Regarding Mr. Nye The Science Guy, and his claim to accept with just that one magical piece of evidence.

For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. Romans 1:20

[Warrior 4 Jesus]

I imagine there's much of human history that didn't make it into the Bible. Think about the Creation to the Flood. That's a time period of well over 1,500 years covered in just 5 chapters!

Wagga, it's funny you should say that about The Magician's Nephew. While vastly different in some ways to the Genesis account, C.S. Lewis' version helped me to see the Bible's account as historical fact - both the Creation and The Fall.

[waggawerewolf27]

Except that a fiction book is a fiction book, something to discuss at length in English literature, and to be understood clearly by English language students, teachers and librarians alike. You do realise there are penalties for passing off fiction as non-fiction, at least in Australia, where the government etc took a dim view of a couple of books passed off as non-fiction when they were actually fiction.

And except that C.S.Lewis created the Narnia series as a fictitional septology of books, a supposal about how Christian truths might look like in another world. The sort of world C.S.Lewis created was the sort of world widely believed to exist in the Middle Ages which adored Romano-Greek legends, which at least some people believed was flat, and which was the centre of its universe. Even then, C.S.Lewis put in a few flies in the ointment, such as Jadis, Uncle Andrew and his progress for progress' sake (plus money in Uncle Andrew's pocket), Shift the ape, Calormen and its more or less Earthly sort of civilization, LOTGK, and others.

Like Dan Brown's Da Vinci Code, the Narnia Chronicles are fictional. Although there are depths upon depths to the Narnia stories, it isn't necessary to see them as anything else but fiction. That is just what is so absurd about the hoo-har people like Philip Pullman made over Susan Pevensie not being killed off like her siblings in The Last Battle. That is also what is absurd when the Church makes a fuss over Pullman's own trilogy, His Dark Materials, and the film made from the first book, The Golden Compass. The trouble is, that some people who do not understand the difference between non-fiction and fiction, tend to take such novels seriously, which by all means ought to be discouraged by teachers, however good the novel. It shouldn't take a fatwa to ban a possibly boring novel which nobody would have been tempted to read if the esteemed Ayatollah had just ignored it as the rubbish it possibly was.

Yes, all these books have some grains of truth, and I can see why the Church might be worried about a novel which sees hidden messages in Da Vinci's very real paintings, which suggests that Christ might have not been crucified but have escaped to Marseilles, and which plays around with the undoubted existence of secret societies like the Freemasons, and even ones that were basically put out of operation about 1314 AD like the Knights Templar.

But despite these things, Dan Brown's novel is still a novel & a fiction, which should be taken with no more than a grain of salt and, if you are very lucky, a free ticket to the Louvre in Paris. You will see there the Mona Lisa, perhaps the Last Supper, if you can navigate through the packed crowds. And you will find that even a free ticket will not be so free if the pickpockets there help themselves to your wallet, as happened to my husband.

Pullman's trilogy, directed at children, was an even worse worry, since it was confusing, distorted, took potshots at the Church, accusing it of warping people's judgement, and seemed to insist that there was no usefully good Supreme Being who would assist people in trouble. But then, again, it is fictional, and is it really worth the effort of a whole sermon on why us oldies shouldn't buy the books for our grandchildren for Christmas? That is, if we have grandchildren, if they ask, and if they haven't read them already in the school or council library. And yes, I do think it is up to parents to discuss children's reading habits with them anyway.

I happen to prefer Narnia for my entertainment. In C.S.Lewis' creation of Narnia, Creation happened in a single day, whilst Aslan's song still hung in the air. And Jack was also careful that humanity was already created, to be sons of Adam and daughters of Eve, as well as to act as observers, witnesses and leaders for his new world. But don't you notice that this time around the humans resist temptation on those first Narnian days, having learned their lesson? Unlike Genesis.

And have you noticed also that C.S.Lewis, like Tolkien in Gollum & Bilbo's riddles in The Hobbit, has a hint about time swallowing up girls and boys, kings and emperors, cities and realms, in Ch 2 of The Silver Chair? I think that could have been one of his points that he made in the Narnia Chronicles. That whatever happened in Creation, God set it going in whatever He called a week, and that otherwise it wasn't ours to see, at least in Genesis. Especially as Adam & Eve, bless their human little hearts, didn't think to ask any questions when they could have done so at the time. I think it is important to remember that the Great Architect of the Universe, all omnipotent, all glorious above, the Ancient of Days, pavilioned in splendour, would be able to make the world in whatever time framework He chose, though us humans mightn't see it that way.

Just as a matter of interest, just what did C.S.Lewis believe about evolutionary theory, both before he became a Christian and afterwards?

[Warrior 4 Jesus]

Ack! I don't know exactly where I was going with that, but in no way, shape or form do I believe Narnia is anything more than fiction. It can point to God's Truth but it's fiction.

I'm not sure what Lewis believed about evolutionary theory. He was a theistic evolutionist for much of his Christian life, but not his whole Christian life.

[King_Erlian]

Just to have a break from the usual Evolution v. Creation debate...

How much like the real thing do you think Lewis' depiction of "Heaven" in The Last Battle is? What do you think Heaven might be like?

[Ithilwen]

It's hard for me to compare my idea of heaven with the way it's shown in The Last Battle, since we don't get to see too much of the children's afterlife. We know all of their deceased friends are there, and Aslan, and that much of it is like Narnia (as well as parts of our world), but more "real".

I think that's somewhat accurate. Especially the part about it being more "real". I think Heaven will be the kind of place we were made for, a place we've been looking for all this time, though we may not have realized. In that case, of course, there's sure to be beauty of such a deep quality, it's sure to seem like "magic" when compared to our current world.

Personally, I've always pictured Heaven as being a bit like Hogwarts. That's sure to sound funny, and I'm not saying that I believe Heaven will be an actual school where people ride on broomsticks or anything. But a lot of people say that Heaven won't just be some paradise where we all lie back on a cloud or tropical beach and rest all the time in some sleepy, heavenly stupor. They say that there will be things to do, even work to do - but good work that we'll want to do because it will be more important and meaningful than any kind of work we've experienced here. They say there will still be rulers and authorities. And when I try to imagine all of those things existing in a way that is good and joyous rather than difficult and tedious, I can't help but picture Hogwarts.

Hogwarts is a school that every child dreams of going. Even though there's studying and tests and homework, it's work that we would be willing to do - that we would want to do - because it's different somehow. It's magical; it means more than anything we have here. Hogwarts is a place you want to go because it's a place where you really belong. Where you get sorted into a house, meet other people who are like you, and work together for house points. It's a place where there are people in authority, like Dumbledore and McGonagall, who you want to impress, who you want to be proud of you. And you are given the chance to make them proud of you. There are important things to do, ways to challenge yourself, ways to improve as a person, friends to make. In short, there is work to be done. But joyous work that brings unity, growth, courage, love, and life as we always wanted in this world but could never find.


~Riella

[Aslanisthebest]

How much like the real thing do you think Lewis' depiction of "Heaven" in The Last Battle is? What do you think Heaven might be like?

That's one of my favourite questions.

I think that TLB was not, per se, a literal, accurate depiction of Heaven, but it was a realization of the perfection Heaven will be as Lewis imagined it. If I recall correctly, the attributes of Aslan's country were it being more real than Narnia, it being the "morning" and the successor of the "dream." I like Lewis' depiction of it, because we get an idea of it being full of joy and togetherness. I think that, in many ways, human being's hackeneyed attempts to depict heaven can paint our picture of heaven in a way that doesn't really seem to be accurate, according to what the Bible says--this could be either the "singing in robes while playing harps on floating clouds" or the strange hippie commune ideas.
I did not finish the entire book, but Heaven bu Randy Alcorn put some things regarding anticipating Heaven in perspective.
Heaven will be a place of adventure and wonder. There won't be ay stars, but I imagine we'll have something of the same qualitative beauty of starry skies. There won't be danger, but I'm sure we'll go on adventures.
We'll be talking to the saints of history, John the Disciple, Elijah, C.S. Lewis, Tolkien, Spurgeon, Corrie Ten Boom... and then all those people who we never got to know but will become acquainted with. It's like Comic-Con, but better! The presence, though, that seems to be the outweighing factor will be meeting Jesus himself. Just imagine the weight of glory of that interaction.
I believe there will be books in heaven--fiction, non-fiction, academic. I believe that there will be scientific discoveries, or something akin to that. I believe there will be gardening and music. I'm pretty sure there will be joke books. I believe that creativity, whether writing or planning out buildings, will be to its fullest extent in heaven, and it'll be a blessed collaboration. I believe there will be designing and photography and prayer. I think it's the perspective described by Chesterton in the following quote:
“You say grace before meals. All right. But I say grace before the concert and the opera, and grace before the play and pantomime, and grace before I open a book, and grace before sketching, painting, swimming, fencing, boxing, walking, playing, dancing and grace before I dip the pen in the ink.”
This is the perspective that does not separate the sacred and the secular, I believe. God is in the scientific discoveries, God is in the writing of a book, God is involved in skiing down a mountain. I'm not saying these things are substitutes for prayer or worship, rather, I think that they can either be an expression of praise or worship or fellowship with God, or they can be an enjoyment of the good things He made for us to enjoy. They exist side-by-side, not opposite, with sacraments like prayer and devotions.
I believe that there will be animals, because, as Alcorn states, if God knows that pets give his children good pleasure, doesn't it make sense that he would include them in paradise?
It's why it's called "glory," and it's what we all look forward to.
I had a pastor who, when asked the question, "Will I be able to recognize my family in heaven?", answered, "Yes, we will be able to recognize one another. But the kinship and connection you have with your family will be a possible connection to have with everyone else."

There are important things to do, ways to challenge yourself, ways to improve as a person, friends to make. In short, there is work to be done. But joyous work that brings unity, growth, courage, love, and life as we always wanted in this world but could never find

Beautifully put.

[waggawerewolf27]

.. in no way, shape or form do I believe Narnia is anything more than fiction. It can point to God's Truth but it's fiction.

Yes, you are right. It is what I think C.S.Lewis meant by the term, numinous, that in this Wikipedia link, was defined as "the power or presence of a divinity," and which was popularised in a 1923 book, the Idea of the Holy. And nowhere does this concept come out more clearly than in C.S.Lewis' s own writings, especially the Narnia series, and also The Great Divorce, in which there is also a glimpse of how C.S.Lewis envisaged Heaven, keeping in mind that a wholehearted belief in God, and love of Him, is essential to enjoy it.

Over and over, in the Narnia series, C.S.Lewis talked about this feeling of what home is and why people feel miserable and unhappy where they are, feeling that it isn't home. Though there were compensations, the Pevensies were carted off to be evacuees, then boarding school. None of these things last, but Edmund and Lucy find themselves in, to them, an almost unendurable stay at Aunt Alberta's place, pestered by Eustace, a lonely only child with no insight into his condition.

The theme is continued in the other four novels, whether it is Digory, grieving over a dying mother, or Polly, left without companions in a drearily wet London summer. Or Shasta, about to be sold into slavery by Arsheesh, or Aravis, fleeing an arranged marriage to Ahoshta Tarkaan. In Silver Chair, we get the same phenomenon, at the beginning, where Eustace and Jill flee their loathesome Experiment House, and also in their journey underground to meet the Witch's denial of the realities they had known. And lastly, in LB, where the Seven Friends of Narnia find that they have gone home, along with Tirian.

And so, I can relate to the idea of LB's heaven as something possibly like the real thing might be like, even for those who say they are agnostic or atheist. I notice that in that vision of heaven, clothes are never uncomfortable, that ailments, injuries and aches and pains disappear, that it is possible to run without losing breath, that it is possible to keep up with everyone else, and that it entails excellent companionship, among other things, including sharing good jokes. And when at the end of LB, C.S.Lewis finds room for people like Mr & Mrs Pevensie, I can see what Susan might regard as home.

I think that's somewhat accurate. Especially the part about it being more "real". I think Heaven will be the kind of place we were made for, a place we've been looking for all this time, though we may not have realized. In that case, of course, there's sure to be beauty of such a deep quality, it's sure to seem like "magic" when compared to our current world....Personally, I've always pictured Heaven as being a bit like Hogwarts.

That is an excellent observation, but I'm intrigued that you would see Heaven as a bit like Hogwarts. Yes, I can see what you mean, and, like Aslanisthebest, I can agree with you that it would be heavenly to do things that challenge me, to enjoy what I do, to find it meaningful, important, and worthwhile, as well as learning things one enjoys learning. To be able to learn and do ballet, tap dancing or handstands, gymnastics and purely to jump for joy, for example, without becoming breathless with the exertion.

Yes, I can see what you mean about Hogwarts, because having been at a boarding school at a very young age (5 yrs old), I, too, found myself entranced by the idea of that school. And though Heaven might not be a school, Hogwarts was/is certainly heavenly compared to Experiment House or what the real thing could be like. At Hogwarts, food was always delicious, even the porridge. And at Hogwarts I wouldn't have had to endure cold showers, to make my own bed super perfect, be expected to wash up after meals, or do an hour of polishing and cleaning before school assembly of a morning, regardless of how I felt that day.

But at Hogwarts, you would still get bullies, as at Experiment House, and definitely in the real deal of everyday boarding schools. I'm glad JKR made sure that children had to be at least 11 to join her fictitious school, which did portray how miserable bullies can make life at school. But surely Heaven would not be like that. I envision Heaven as being free of bullies, of bullying tendencies and the self-interest involved in bullying. As the kind of place we were made for, where it is who we are in God's sight that matters, and where time and its limitations mean nothing.

I believe there will be books in heaven--fiction, non-fiction, academic. I believe that there will be scientific discoveries, or something akin to that. I believe there will be gardening and music. I'm pretty sure there will be joke books. I believe that creativity, whether writing or planning out buildings, will be to its fullest extent in heaven, and it'll be a blessed collaboration.

Wow! That, too, is beautiful. Did I mention a book called Job, a comedy of justice, written by Robert Heinlein, in which the lead character, Alex, finds himself in different realities, usually seeking work as a dishwasher, and using the local library as a point of reference to find out how to deal with his surroundings? It was an interesting story, and I loved what Robert Heinlein's hero says about libraries and librarians. But not his picture of Heaven. Apparently, this admittedly satirical portrayal of Heaven doesn't have libraries or librarians. So if Heaven is like Robert Heinlein's description, I'd definitely not be included anyway.

I'd almost rather have Philip Pullman's version of the afterlife, even though his description of "the Ancient of Days" appalled me, and rather turned me off those books. Could the numinous, as C.S.Lewis describes it, be the reason why we like some books and dislike others?

[Ithilwen]

There won't be ay stars, but I imagine we'll have something of the same qualitative beauty of starry skies.

Just curious - where did you hear there would be no stars? Is that in the Bible?

I believe there will be books in heaven--fiction, non-fiction

*raises hand* And some of it will be written by me.

I'm intrigued that you would see Heaven as a bit like Hogwarts.... at Hogwarts, you would still get bullies, as at Experiment House, and definitely in the real deal of everyday boarding schools. I'm glad JKR made sure that children had to be at least 11 to join her fictitious school, which did portray how miserable bullies can make life at school. But surely Heaven would not be like that. I envision Heaven as being free of bullies, of bullying tendencies and the self-interest involved in bullying.

Note that I did say "a bit like Hogwarts", not "exactly like Hogwarts in every way". And I listed the ways in which I thought they would be similar. Obviously I didn't mean that bullies would be in Heaven. I have a feeling there wouldn't be grudge-holding potion masters that dock points from your house for little to no reason either. Or a multi-headed dog, or a scary forest, or an evil wizard trying to kill everyone.


~Riella

[waggawerewolf27]

Obviously I didn't mean that bullies would be in Heaven. I have a feeling there wouldn't be grudge-holding potion masters that dock points from your house for little to no reason either.

Ah yes. But would there be room in Heaven for a repentant "grudge-holding potion master that docks points from other houses for little to no reason"? Especially one driven by a deep, tragic, defeated love for the mother of the boy he picked on? Who dies bravely, completing his mission to impart vital information to that boy? Now that is the $64,000 question.

Of course that is fiction, where everything is in the lap of the author of said fiction, for better or worse. JKR rather stressed the need for repentance and honest self-examination in her series, though an afterlife didn't really come into her creations. We know from Christian teachings in the real world, that repentance of sins and honest self-examination are definitely required for redemption and entrance to Heaven. Do you think, maybe, there would be a place in Heaven for reformed ex-bullies, after all?