A Good God would not send a decent Atheist to hell.

[marketandchurch]

This was the post that got me banned on Christian Chat:

Then God doesn't care about the goodness and decency of an atheist, a buddhist, etc. And if that is the message you are telling me, then there is no point to being a good person. There is no point of fighting on behalf of the oppressed, as America did, in WWII. The only purpose of fighting the Japanese, and beating back the Nazi's should have been so that we could bring more people to christ...is that what your saying? Should America be sending food and aid to heathens in Haiti? Should America be helping out muslims in disaster relief fallowing a natural disaster, unless it is to bring them to Christ? Is a person's only value to you, there potential to become a convert? They have no humanity beyond that?

You have an old testament my_adonai, and you are to be as obsessed with its obsessions, as you are with the new testament's. And the Old Testament's preoccupation is fighting evil, championing the good, and making a more ethical existence, during this lifetime.

And unless you think Christians alone can make this lifetime a little better, a little less genocidal, with a little less starvation, a little less torture, etc, it is an unethical message to peddle, that a good God would demand goodness, unless one doesn't believe in his son. Then one's goodness is pointless. One might as well not care about not gossiping behind other people's back, destroying someone's dignity in public, sleeping with a coworker's wife, extorting an elderly couple that one was hired to help, raping a pre-pubcescent child, killing another human being because of their skin color, etc, etc, etc.

Apparently, I was challenging people's faith, and was just there to be anti-christian, in saying that a Good God would not send to hell decent people, simply because they do not believe in his Son. I got all sorts of less then appetizing replies, saying I'm screwed for eternity, if I don't accept Jesus. I feel that I am not alone, even within the Christian community, in thinking this as I've heard many catholic priests, and mainstream protestant pastors, while I was growing up, distancing themselves from such a belief. I don't know where people on this forum stand, but I'll put it up for debate:

• Topic of Debate: A Good God would not send to hell a decent person, simply for not believing in his son.

If you agree with me, and are a Christian, please square your response with the rest of the New Testament. What I'm looking for is scriptural consistency to back up your position, and more importantly, how one will then re-read the entire message of the New Testament, if one wants to hold that position. I say this because I don't want you to drop scripture, simply because it doesn't conform to your own personal beliefs, but I am looking for how one can reinterpret the New testament, if one drops that central tenant, & for the rest of us, impediment, to everlasting life. Is there room for this? Or is the New Testament rigidly in the affirmative about Christ being the only way to heaven? Which is fine. That's their theology, but let's see where this goes.

[Clownboat]

[Replying to post 333 by Clownboat]


You wanta story? Pokee will tell one.

Tom Hanks goes back three times behind enemy lines to get his comrades in a firefight...

...they were injured and he goes back and back and back, not thinking of anything at all except to save them...

...running his heart out, and of course in the movies he survives all, yet we know in real life this hardly happens considering the risks involved.

I am crying right now thinking of it. Jesus has done no less. And this ain't no movie sir. It really happened and Jesus had me on his back.

And now the Brotherhood of the Saints kicks in...all who Tom Hanks has saved knows INTRINSICALLY this principle: when the time comes and the situation is reversed, it is YOUR TURN to find them, bring them out, and save them.

You further my point.
A story will suffice. Thank you for referencing a modern day story that conveys a message but did not happen in reality.

You know, like the resurrection story. Unless it really happened of course, but I'm guessing it true like Saving Private Ryan is true.
I am open to being shown wrong.

[pokeegeorge]

[Replying to post 339 by Clownboat]

Thank you for referencing a modern day story that conveys a message but did not happen in reality.

Oh contraire my light hearted friend. Stories LIKE Saving Private Ryan happened
often and without doubt throughout the wars, even the small ones.

You don't know them specifically for the most part and neither do I, but the story in the Bible concerning Jesus was a CLAIM by more than several saying this story is true and valid.

If you cannot allow for the probability that saving actions were done throughout the Vietnam War, as well as any other...then you sir have a basic problem with perception in general.

War is Life and Death. What we don't realize is that LIFE is life and death.

Just a reminder in case you mis-perceive.

[Clownboat]

[Replying to post 339 by Clownboat]

Thank you for referencing a modern day story that conveys a message but did not happen in reality.

Oh contraire my light hearted friend. Stories LIKE Saving Private Ryan happened
often and without doubt throughout the wars, even the small ones.

You don't know them specifically for the most part and neither do I, but the story in the Bible concerning Jesus was a CLAIM by more than several saying this story is true and valid.

If you cannot allow for the probability that saving actions were done throughout the Vietnam War, as well as any other...then you sir have a basic problem with perception in general.

War is Life and Death. What we don't realize is that LIFE is life and death.

Just a reminder in case you mis-perceive.

So, back to my statement in #333:

You could just tell a story, maybe even use some real life characters to help people relate. You know, kinda like the story we are talking about here.

You then reference Saving Private Ryan and say that similar stories happened.

Once again, I thank you for providing a modern day story that has some historical aspects, even some cases that were somewhat similar, but did not really happen like the movie claims. You know, like the resurrection story and then the zombies coming out of their graves afterwords.

"Night of the Living Dead" next for proving the zombies in the Bible perhaps?

[pokeegeorge]

[Replying to post 341 by Clownboat]


Hee hee Clownboat. What the movie portrayed was agape love at it's finest.

That is all I AM portraying, although I believe the Christ story is factual, which you do not...

...the principle was what I was getting at...why you insist on dry fact all the time is beyond me. The Garden of Eden may not be FACTUAL in all of it's variables...yet there is something true about the story, otherwise why tell our children and theirs to the end of Israel?

Dry fact is hard to find. Like an equation, 1 plus 1 is two. Okay then prove it.

Mathematical proof supplied let's suppose. But what do these numbers REPRESENT?

Now you have proof of fact APPLIED. A whole different scenario. Just saying.

You don't believe the Jesus Story? Join a crowd. It isn't unusual at all.

I believe it. I have reason to. Jesus said only through him we can know God, and I was first confronted with this and then later believed it. But not easily.

[ttruscott]

[Replying to post 322 by Choir Loft]

Oh my. Where to even start. This kind of thinking gives me a sick feeling in the pit of my stomach these days. But I can't be too critical, because it's the thinking I grew up with. Though I eventually rejected it, it took quite a bit to bring me to the point where I saw it for what it truly is.

So, as there is quite a bit you've touched on here, I will ask one simple question: in what universe is "eternal conscious torment for all" loving/merciful? How can this possibly line up with a God whose very nature is love (I John 4:8,16)? Torment from which there is no possible escape does not sound like something that can be justified as loving, through any logic, no matter how twisted.

Good morning, fatherlearningtolove,

Let's amend "eternal conscious torment for all" to "eternal conscious torment for some." I know it doesn't sit any better with you but it does for me and here is my rational...please bear with me, it's a bit long.

PCE:

GOD's Purpose:
GOD wanted to create a Church, a congregation of people in full loving, holy communion with HIM in heaven BECAUSE THEY WANTED TO BE THERE WITH HIM IN THAT REALITY! They must have truly wanted love, holiness and heaven as HE defines it.

GOD's Method:
How did HE find all the people in HIS creation who would like to live that way, after HE taught them all about it and all about the alternatives? HE asked them to make a true free will decision to accept HIM as their GOD and to accept HIS purpose for their creation... or not.

How did HE ensure they really wanted that and were not just pushed into it by being all GODlike and all? Looking the same as anyone else, HE offered no proof at all that HE was divine and that HE could take us to heaven or help us learn to be pure, holy and loving but asked us to accept this on faith, ie the hope that it was all true because we liked what we heard so well and wanted it so much, we didn't need proof to accept it. Faith = hope, hope in our eternal life in heaven with GOD in full loving, holy communion, ie fulfilling HIS reason for our creation.

By not proving HIMself overwhelmingly but hiding HIS glory, GOD allows us each to choose where to put our faith, by which we actually define our own reality, the world view we live in which also defines both God and our relationship with Him from our point of view. "This is what I believe" means "This is the way I hope the reality of the universe really is." 2 Corinthians 5:7 We live by faith, not by sight (ie proof).

BUT once someone chose to accept HIM as their GOD and to accept HIS purpose for their creation, HE gave them the promise of ELECTION to heaven, backed by the gospel promise that if they should ever choose to become evil in HIS sight, HE would do what ever was necessary to bring them to redemption, back to HIM and back to their original true free will decision.

For those elect who did later choose to become evil in HIS sight, their free will broken and enslaved by an addiction to evil, HE gave PREDESTINATED lives on earth, perfectly designed to fulfill their salvation and to bring them to holiness.

Since this all happened pre-earth's creation, and since earth is where these people live out their predestined lives, this is not the place where we try to find GOD but the place where we work out our already made decisions about HIM.

Why Hell:
Of course this allowed some to reject HIM and HIS promises of election and salvation and so put themselves outside of HIS mercy, grace and love for eternity. The natural consequence of this decision was to self create themselves as totally other to HIS purpose, never able to fulfill that purpose and so other to HIS intent that they were now called demons and devils, carrying an eternal enmity to HIM and HIS Church, the elected ones.

Also their free will was destroyed by three things:
1. their enslavement to sin by choosing evil

2. When their choice to reject GOD as a false GOD was proven wrong (by HIS creation of the physical universe) it meant their "free " will was now coerced by the knowledge of HIS deity so they could never choose to accept HIM as GOD by free will, which was a necessity to fulfill HIS purpose for heaven and for salvation and

3. they could now never again choose HIM by faith because what is proven is no longer faith: Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. Faith is hope.
Romans 8:24 For in this hope we were saved. But hope that is seen is no hope at all. Who hopes for what he already has? This faith / hope saves if it is not based upon proof (ie what is seen).

Thus they are condemned by their refusal to accept YHWH as their GOD, putting themselves outside of all HIS promises and self creating themselves as demons and devils eternally unable to fulfill HIS purpose in their creation, fit only to be discarded.

If you don't think sequestering them in hell with the natural attenuating experience of suffering, as per the many vivid warnings, is proper, what do you suggest for a completely criminal spirit who was created unable to be destroyed? [The suggestion of hell itself proves they are eternal spirits or their disintegration would be the answer...]

So that is how I think it was: all spirits receive that which they chose by their own true free will, what they wanted most, a life with YHWH as their GOD in HIS heaven or a life without HIM, scorning HIM a false GOD and all HIS warnings about what would therefore happen to them for such a decision, were scorned.

I hope this gives you a better understanding of how I think,

Peace, Ted

[ttruscott]

...

Shema, boys and girls. The Great Command of the Judeo-Christian faith.

I've studied them all...it was the voice of the Holy Spirit that helped me to choose which was the correct understanding of their nature and the meaning of the Shema. Who cares about the decrees of men?

Peace, Ted

[ttruscott]

Ummm, guys, Jesus was GOD.... seems easy to me,

peace, ted

Gods can die? How does that work?

If Jesus was God, then He never died, it was all smoke and mirrors.

The Resurrection is therefore a lie.

Why pretend you do not know we think He was true GOD and true man and the dying part that was resurrected truly was the man part?

Peace, Ted

[fatherlearningtolove]

[Replying to post 322 by Choir Loft]

Oh my. Where to even start. This kind of thinking gives me a sick feeling in the pit of my stomach these days. But I can't be too critical, because it's the thinking I grew up with. Though I eventually rejected it, it took quite a bit to bring me to the point where I saw it for what it truly is.

So, as there is quite a bit you've touched on here, I will ask one simple question: in what universe is "eternal conscious torment for all" loving/merciful? How can this possibly line up with a God whose very nature is love (I John 4:8,16)? Torment from which there is no possible escape does not sound like something that can be justified as loving, through any logic, no matter how twisted.

Good morning, fatherlearningtolove,

Let's amend "eternal conscious torment for all" to "eternal conscious torment for some." I know it doesn't sit any better with you but it does for me and here is my rational...please bear with me, it's a bit long.

But you justify the distastefulness of "eternal conscious torment for some" by saying all deserve it. You say "it's ok for God to be tyrannical and vengeful and bloodthirsty for some because all deserve it." "Cruelty to THEM is ok because all of us deserve it - be thankful for the crumbs!"

But there's a big problem with your thinking. The problem is that it is based on bad logic.

On the face of it (meaning, if we read passages of scripture and take the most immediately apparent interpretation, without any thought of possible alternate interpretations), there are 5 teachings in scripture:
1. God is sovereign/omnipotent/His will is inescapable/God gets what God wants.
2. God wants all men to be saved/God doesn't want anyone to perish.

Now stop right there...logically, wouldn't this lead to the conclusion that all men will be saved? Hmm...interesting, because the third set of scriptures we have teach:
3. All men will be saved.

Well, that's only logical. And yet, we also have two more, if we merely take the "face value" of the verses:
4. Some men will never be saved and will end up in eternal conscious torment.
5. Some men will never be saved and will be annihilated.

Now, obviously, all 5 of these cannot be true. So, traditionally, there have been two main groups in theology. One side we will call Calvinists, though they should really just call themselves Augustinians. The Calvinists reject #2 and #3 and either keep 4 or 5, rejecting the other. Then you have the Arminians, who reject #1 and #3, and either keep 4 or 5. But here you have problems. See, if you reject #2, you end up with "monster God" - a wrathful, sadistic, bloodthirsty tyrant. It's no wonder that studies have proven that those who believe in a wrathful God are more prone to mental illnesses, by the way. The problem with the Arminian God is that he's weak. He's a colossal failure! How can we even be sure ANYONE is saved, if God's will can be thwarted by man?

BUT...if we keep #1 and #2, and then keep #3...it makes God MORE powerful and MORE loving! And then we can move on to examine what the scriptures used to justify #4 and #5 really mean. Which is what I do in my blog series "Checkmate For Hell".

[Clownboat]

[Replying to post 341 by Clownboat]


Hee hee Clownboat. What the movie portrayed was agape love at it's finest.

That is all I AM portraying, although I believe the Christ story is factual, which you do not...

...the principle was what I was getting at...why you insist on dry fact all the time is beyond me. The Garden of Eden may not be FACTUAL in all of it's variables...yet there is something true about the story, otherwise why tell our children and theirs to the end of Israel?

Dry fact is hard to find. Like an equation, 1 plus 1 is two. Okay then prove it.

Mathematical proof supplied let's suppose. But what do these numbers REPRESENT?

Now you have proof of fact APPLIED. A whole different scenario. Just saying.

You don't believe the Jesus Story? Join a crowd. It isn't unusual at all.

I believe it. I have reason to. Jesus said only through him we can know God, and I was first confronted with this and then later believed it. But not easily.

Have you never seen the movie? Ryan, wasn't saved due to love. Hanks, had previously never met the man to even decide if he loved him.

Hanks, does display honor and courage though, but I don't find that in the definition of agape love.

The Garden of Eden may not be FACTUAL in all of it's variables...yet there is something true about the story

Yes, there can be many things true about a story. That does not make the story real.

[ttruscott]

...

How about just looking at this biblically? The Bible says to use your will as much as you can for the commands of the Bible...the first command being Shema.

1. Does this contradict Jesus or support His contention? From my Bible:
Matthew 22:37 Jesus replied: "'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' 38 This is the first and greatest commandment.

2. Where are we told to use our wills, please? Also: are we not told that our wills are enslaved by sin and so can choose no good and that the obvious meaning of the law was to prove our sinful inability to keep the law and not to save us? And that dying to be reborn releases us from the law, Rom 7:6 But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code.

Being elect or non-elect has nothing to do with our will, since we cannot know absolutely if WE are elect or non-elect. A Calvinist sees ELECTION as unto salvation primarily...

I won't argue the right or wrong of another sect except as it impinges on my bias, ... Election had to be about our will, our true free will choice of YHWH as GOD or it is arbitrary and no one will understand it as you have pointed out. Getting past the ancient but wrong created on earth bias opens the meaning of election and how it is portrayed in the parable of the wheat and the tares perfectly, Matt 13.

Election is really unto covenant. And we as men must work out this covenant as best we can. Using our WILL which may not be in the end unencumbered. Yet all we have as men to grow the seed which you have said must come first.

Election was a covenant and salvation is the method of fulfilling the covenant for evil sinners to become adopted children of the most HIGH. It is not so much that we ensure that salvation by our struggle but that we perfect that salvation by struggling to grow our faith by listening to and following the still small voice of GOD until we chose to be perfectly holy, free from any taint of addicting sin.

I don't remember writing about needing to grow a seed and hardly ever use that metaphor so I'm not sure how I used it here or how I may have meant it - I think maybe you got the wrong guy here...

Peace, Ted