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.

[JohnA]

[Replying to post 576 by JohnA]

You are the one being defensive here.

Please explain, are you saying I'm doing something wrong?

I am allowed to defend my point and point out his inconsistencies in his propositions.

How can he say that this omniscience/free-will is a complicated issue and been discussed for centuries when he claims that free will does not exist? Surely, he, himself has solved it then. So, why would he refuse to share this knowledge?
He clearly stated he does not want to debate about this god, yet he does. How is that not inconsistent?

[help3434]

[Replying to post 578 by JohnA]

He doesn't claim to have solved it. He says that he has an opinion, and acknowledges other opinions as valid.

[myth-one.com]

. . . according to you, this God who created these angels seems a bit of a . . . well . . . he doesn't seem very powerful, certainly not omnipotent. I mean he can't even get rid of these pesky angels he created.

God gave up being all powerful when He created the first spirit other than Himself.

God gave up being all powerful with man by creating everlasting covenants with mankind.

And he doesn't seem very smart either. First he creates these angel guys who he can't get rid of when they don't respect their creator. Then he makes the same mistake all over again with these humans he gives immortal souls to. Can't get rid of them either. When is this Guy going to learn?

The immortal soul of mankind is a myth. I call it myth one as it is the root myth from which all other "Christian" myths arise. Here is its origin:

And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:

Immortality is the gift of God given to the saved. It "saves" them from death. We are not born with our reward -- as most Christians falsely believe!

God certainly can get rid of mankind unless they fall under the protection of His everlasting covenant which grants them everlasting life -- the believers.

And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.

Only the devil shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever. And that's because he's an immortal spirit which God is powerless to kill.

The 1/3 of the angels who rebelled with him will be forgiven or serve determinant sentences.

The fire & brimstone will not hurt any of these spirits.

...and anyone whose name was not found written in the book of life was thrown into the lake of fire.

That's referring to nonbeliving humans. They instantly perish when cast into the lake -- never to live again.

They got to you in Sunday School -- didn't they.

[Nickman]

. . . according to you, this God who created these angels seems a bit of a . . . well . . . he doesn't seem very powerful, certainly not omnipotent. I mean he can't even get rid of these pesky angels he created.

God gave up being all powerful when He created the first spirit other than Himself.

God gave up being all powerful with man by creating everlasting covenants with mankind.

And he doesn't seem very smart either. First he creates these angel guys who he can't get rid of when they don't respect their creator. Then he makes the same mistake all over again with these humans he gives immortal souls to. Can't get rid of them either. When is this Guy going to learn?

The immortal soul of mankind is a myth. I call it myth one as it is the root myth from which all other "Christian" myths arise. Here is its origin:

And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:

Immortality is the gift of God given to the saved. It "saves" them from death. We are not born with our reward -- as most Christians falsely believe!

God certainly can get rid of mankind unless they fall under the protection of His everlasting covenant which grants them everlasting life -- the believers.

And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.

Only the devil shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever. And that's because he's an immortal spirit which God is powerless to kill.

The 1/3 of the angels who rebelled with him will be forgiven or serve determinant sentences.

The fire & brimstone will not hurt any of these spirits.

...and anyone whose name was not found written in the book of life was thrown into the lake of fire.

That's referring to nonbeliving humans. They instantly perish when cast into the lake -- never to live again.

They got to you in Sunday School -- didn't they.

You hold the same beliefs as a Christadelphian. That was the last group I associated with and called myself before I became an atheist.

There are a few verses that contradict this line of thinking. Here is one. I wanna see if you apply the same apologetics as the Delphs.

"And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand, The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb: And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name" (Revelation 14.9-11 KJV bible)

[myth-one.com]

You hold the same beliefs as a Christadelphian. That was the last group I associated with and called myself before I became an atheist.

If you've heard about "Christadelphians" you know more about them than I.

There are a few verses that contradict this line of thinking. Here is one. I wanna see if you apply the same apologetics as the Delphs.

Can you spell out what "line of thinking" means.

Basically, John 3:16 defines my basic beliefs:

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him, should not perish, but have everlasting life. (John 3:16)

This verse states that believers shall have everlasting life. Everlasting life is not something all mankind possess as a right of birth. That is, no part of mankind is born with immortality. There is no "immortal soul!"

Nonbelievers perish. Where perish means they never possess life again!

It's so simple, and I'm a simple person.

"And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand, The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb: And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name" (Revelation 14.9-11 KJV bible)

This verse does not contradict John 3:16 nor "my line of thinking." In fact, it supports both.

Nonbelievers are cast into the lake of fire, where they suffer their second and permanent death.

The lake of fire was their torment.

The smoke of their torment rises forever because the lake of fire lasts forever -- being the everlasting prison for Satan.

After humans die their first "death" in the Bible, they are said to sleep, slumber, or rest; because all will be resurrected to life again.

There will be "no rest day or night" for those cast into the lake of fire simply means that this second death is permanent!

That is, they do not sleep as in their first death.

They are dead -- never to live again.

So the smoke of their torment never ends -- and they have no rest as they did after their first death. They are gone for all eternity.

There is no eternal torture!

There is eternal damnation!

That's what the scriptures plainly state.

(OK, it seems simple & obvious to me. Perhaps not to others. How can it be any other way if God is truly Love as the Bible states?)

[Danmark]

You hold the same beliefs as a Christadelphian. That was the last group I associated with and called myself before I became an atheist.

If you've heard about "Christadelphians" you know more about them than I.

There are a few verses that contradict this line of thinking. Here is one. I wanna see if you apply the same apologetics as the Delphs.

Can you spell out what "line of thinking" means.

Basically, John 3:16 defines my basic beliefs:

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him, should not perish, but have everlasting life. (John 3:16)

This verse states that believers shall have everlasting life. Everlasting life is not something all mankind possess as a right of birth. That is, no part of mankind is born with immortality. There is no "immortal soul!"

Nonbelievers perish. Where perish means they never possess life again!

It's so simple, and I'm a simple person.

"And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand, The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb: And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name" (Revelation 14.9-11 KJV bible)

This verse does not contradict John 3:16 nor "my line of thinking." In fact, it supports both.

Nonbelievers are cast into the lake of fire, where they suffer their second and permanent death.

The lake of fire was their torment.

The smoke of their torment rises forever because the lake of fire lasts forever -- being the everlasting prison for Satan.

After humans die their first "death" in the Bible, they are said to sleep, slumber, or rest; because all will be resurrected to life again.

There will be "no rest day or night" for those cast into the lake of fire simply means that this second death is permanent!

That is, they do not sleep as in their first death.

They are dead -- never to live again.

So the smoke of their torment never ends -- and they have no rest as they did after their first death. They are gone for all eternity.

That's what the scriptures plainly state.

(OK, it seems simple & obvious to me. Perhaps not to others. How can it be any other way if God is truly Love as the Bible states?)

Why is this Sunday School myth and different than another?
I understand the need to feel YOUR own Bible based belief system is special and better than another's, but they're all based one of many tribes' all too human attempts to know the unknowable; a flight from reality.

[Nickman]

You hold the same beliefs as a Christadelphian. That was the last group I associated with and called myself before I became an atheist.

If you've heard about "Christadelphians" you know more about them than I.

Well that would be obvious, but you should look them up. You might find that your views are quite similar.

Can you spell out what "line of thinking" means.

In this instance, it means that your line of thinking, which is common to Christadelphian theology, is inconsistent with some scriptures. One of which I posted.

Basically, John 3:16 defines my basic beliefs:

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him, should not perish, but have everlasting life. (John 3:16)

This verse states that believers shall have everlasting life. Everlasting life is not something all mankind possess as a right of birth. That is, no part of mankind is born with immortality. There is no "immortal soul!"

Nonbelievers perish. Where perish means they never possess life again!

It's so simple, and I'm a simple person.

Rev 14 disagrees with you, and me when I was a Delphian.

This verse does not contradict John 3:16 nor "my line of thinking." In fact, it supports both.

Nonbelievers are cast into the lake of fire, where they suffer their second and permanent death.

The lake of fire was their torment.

The smoke of their torment rises forever because the lake of fire lasts forever -- being the everlasting prison for Satan.

After humans die their first "death" in the Bible, they are said to sleep, slumber, or rest; because all will be resurrected to life again.

There will be "no rest day or night" for those cast into the lake of fire simply means that this second death is permanent!

That is, they do not sleep as in their first death.

They are dead -- never to live again.

So the smoke of their torment never ends -- and they have no rest as they did after their first death. They are gone for all eternity.

There is no eternal torture!

There is eternal damnation!

That's what the scriptures plainly state.

(OK, it seems simple & obvious to me. Perhaps not to others. How can it be any other way if God is truly Love as the Bible states?)

"No rest day or night" is quite different from being dead, which is called rest, and also sleep. No rest day or night and torment are inconsistent with the idea that the lake of fire is eternal cessation of life. Cessation of life is rest. The best rest anyone of us could ever ask for.

[JohnA]

[Replying to post 578 by JohnA]

He doesn't claim to have solved it. He says that he has an opinion, and acknowledges other opinions as valid.

Danmark wrote :
" No, there is no absolute free will. Man has at least the illusion of free will...). "
Why do you say that's an opinion? Sounds like a claim to me.

Secondly,
Danmark keeps on debating about this god that he claims does not exist, a god that he does not want to debate with me but only with others. Do you deny this?

It is quite clear what is going on here. Danmark gets stroppy when he lacks attention and his points are shown invalid.

Only reply of you have any new content to add.

[Nickman]

[Replying to post 578 by JohnA]

He doesn't claim to have solved it. He says that he has an opinion, and acknowledges other opinions as valid.

Danmark wrote :
" No, there is no absolute free will. Man has at least the illusion of free will...). "
Why do you say that's an opinion? Sounds like a claim to me.

Secondly,
Danmark keeps on debating about this god that he claims does not exist, a god that he does not want to debate with me but only with others. Do you deny this?

It is quite clear what is going on here. Danmark gets stroppy when he lacks attention and his points are shown invalid.

Only reply of you have any new content to add.

I think what happened is people, such as myself and Danmark, have provided other valid arguments for the "free will" conundrum, and you don't care to acknowledge them. We understand your argument as a valid one, but there are more than just one valid argument on the subject. It has been pointed out many times that knowledge of something doesn't hinder free will. This is a valid, logical argument, that is sound.
In God's mind, you have already made your decision. It was your choice. He just sees into the future at which decision you decided to make.

Can you make another decision? No, because you already made your decision. This is not a hindering of "free will." God just saw it unfold ahead of time.

You won't acknowledge this as valid.

[JohnA]

[Replying to post 578 by JohnA]

He doesn't claim to have solved it. He says that he has an opinion, and acknowledges other opinions as valid.

Danmark wrote :
" No, there is no absolute free will. Man has at least the illusion of free will...). "
Why do you say that's an opinion? Sounds like a claim to me.

Secondly,
Danmark keeps on debating about this god that he claims does not exist, a god that he does not want to debate with me but only with others. Do you deny this?

It is quite clear what is going on here. Danmark gets stroppy when he lacks attention and his points are shown invalid.

Only reply of you have any new content to add.

I think what happened is people, such as myself and Danmark, have provided other valid arguments for the "free will" conundrum, and you don't care to acknowledge them. We understand your argument as a valid one, but there are more than just one valid argument on the subject. It has been pointed out many times that knowledge of something doesn't hinder free will. This is a valid, logical argument, that is sound.
In God's mind, you have already made your decision. It was your choice. He just sees into the future at which decision you decided to make.

Can you make another decision? No, because you already made your decision. This is not a hindering of "free will." God just saw it unfold ahead of time.

You won't acknowledge this as valid.

It seems to me that you refuse to acknowledge:
There is just 1 argument, but many justifications to try make it rational.
Your points have been refuted, yet you are the one that deny that. I am merely adhering to the argument that there is a contradiction. And you can not resolve it, but still claim there is no contradiction. Your 'hindered' thing was answered (ironically by a theist), but you choose to ignore the answer to hold on to your belief. How is that logical?

How is Danmark's Claims above logical?
In the 'no evidence no belief - do you have evidence' thread Danmark is now claiming that this non-existent god has evidence for existence.
And I should just accept this?

This is not about the content, but about the person. People do not like to be shown wrong. And to me it seems like this is the case here again.