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

Exploring the details of Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
marketandchurch
Scholar
Posts: 358
Joined: Wed Apr 10, 2013 12:51 am
Location: The People's Republic Of Portland

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

Post #1

Post by 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.

User avatar
Goat
Site Supporter
Posts: 24999
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 6:09 pm
Has thanked: 25 times
Been thanked: 207 times

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

Post #11

Post by Goat »

marketandchurch wrote: 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.

Well... according to the Zohar, .. a medieval document to be sure, the 'evil' are purified for up to a year in Gehenna, and after that.. if they are still not purified, are given the release of oblivion, rather than ' go to hell'

Now, when it comes to different Christian sects, I have seen both sides argued about that. Some quote 'Jesus came to save all men, particularly those who believe'. Others quote passages that indicate non-Christians will go to hell. I find that which position they take is totally dependent on their own personality,
“What do you think science is? There is nothing magical about science. It is simply a systematic way for carefully and thoroughly observing nature and using consistent logic to evaluate results. So which part of that exactly do you disagree with? Do you disagree with being thorough? Using careful observation? Being systematic? Or using consistent logic?�

Steven Novella

User avatar
marketandchurch
Scholar
Posts: 358
Joined: Wed Apr 10, 2013 12:51 am
Location: The People's Republic Of Portland

Post #12

Post by marketandchurch »

bluethread wrote: The problem is the premise. Paul refers to the principle espoused by Yesha'yahu when He says, (Rom. 3:10) "As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:". It is a matter of proximate cause. If a man is headed for a brick wall, does he hit the brick wall because he was headed for it, or because he did not call onstar and have them turn off the engine? In that case would one fault onstar for only saving those who call?
But I don't think that current levels of righteousness is not the only barometer of measurement that God will assess us by, as he has our entire lifetime to weigh. He has our thoughts, and more importantly, the behavior that are inspired by those thoughts, over the course of a lifetime. And especially if one comes around to making an impact on the life of others and being a moral force for good, God sees this, he sees context, and I'm sure this all weighs into what reality one ends up after this one.

For example, a catholic woman who whored herself to a German officer in WWII, to keep quiet about a group of Jews she was hiding in her basement, does not, or should not, share the same fate as an unethical German, who rounded up Jews for the concentration camps. She is a moral giant, even if her means were not pure or ideal.

User avatar
marketandchurch
Scholar
Posts: 358
Joined: Wed Apr 10, 2013 12:51 am
Location: The People's Republic Of Portland

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

Post #13

Post by marketandchurch »

[Replying to post 6 by alive]

Exactly. What is goodness, if it comes with the caveat of belief in Christ. We should stop saying that helping the elderly, defending someone from being raped, or fighting injustice, is good. Because it's not, since all of it is irrelevant in the final analysis, and someone who only does a mediocre amount of goodness in their entire lifetime, but believes in Christ, will live on in heaven, because God only recognizes the goodness of those who believe in Christ.

And what is one's argument to the entire world then, since majority of humanity have not had the chance for an evangelist of the Christian faith, to frame the case for Christ to them?

Will the good among them simply parish or go to hell, for not believing in Jesus? And what is the argument for them to be ethical, if you make the case to them, and they decide not to believe in Jesus?

User avatar
marketandchurch
Scholar
Posts: 358
Joined: Wed Apr 10, 2013 12:51 am
Location: The People's Republic Of Portland

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

Post #14

Post by marketandchurch »

YahDough wrote: [Replying to post 1 by marketandchurch]

As TheTruth101 pointed out in a previous post, "hell" means death, not everlasting torment. The concept of hell has been perverted by unsound religious dogma.

I'm not suggesting that there is no judgment after death. On the contrary, there is judgment.
Heb:9:27: And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:
I'm just saying the final resting place for the unsaved is death.
I am more comfortable with death.

But I see heaven and hell as tools to get you to behave ethically during this lifetime, and if death is the only thing that mass-murderers will see following this lifetime, there is no incentive for them not to continue murdering during this one. Murder is a bit extreme. They already don't care about going to heaven, and if they can get away with murder, as most murderers do, then all they have to worry about is the grave.

What is the christian case for behaving ethically during this lifetime, if hell does not exist? I don't have an issue hell btw... I am actually supportive of the existence of something like hell. I just don't buy this story that God would send decent people to hell.

Online
User avatar
1213
Savant
Posts: 13594
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 11:06 am
Location: Finland
Has thanked: 519 times
Been thanked: 517 times

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

Post #15

Post by 1213 »

marketandchurch wrote:
  • Topic of Debate: A Good God would not send to hell a decent person, simply for not believing in his son.
I think that depend on what believing means in that. Does it mean that you believe what Jesus said, or does it mean that you believe Jesus exist.

Bible says for example:
Jesus said to him, "'You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.' This is the first and great commandment. A second likewise is this, 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.
Mat. 22:37-39
For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments. His commandments are not grievous.
1 John 5:3
For the commandments, "You shall not commit adultery," "You shall not murder," "You shall not steal," "You shall not give false testimony," "You shall not covet," and whatever other commandments there are, are all summed up in this saying, namely, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." Love doesn't harm a neighbor. Love therefore is the fulfillment of the law.
Romans 13:9-10

According to those love to God means that person keeps Gods commandments that are fulfilled with love your neighbor as yourself. Why wouldnt any decent person believe that and live according to that?

If you understand that the Law is good, I think you are righteous and according to Jesus righteous shall have eternal life. But I dont think there is no reason why any person must believe to eternal life. It is enough if he understands that Gods will is good and wants to live according to it. I think that is decent. The eternal life can be then the bonus that surprises decent person in the end. :)

I also want to says, if only reason to do right is that person tries to gain eternal life, I think he is then not very righteous.
My new book can be read freely from here:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rIkqxC ... xtqFY/view

Old version can be read from here:
http://web.archive.org/web/202212010403 ... x_eng.html

User avatar
Mithrae
Prodigy
Posts: 4326
Joined: Mon Apr 05, 2010 7:33 am
Location: Australia
Has thanked: 112 times
Been thanked: 195 times

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

Post #16

Post by Mithrae »

marketandchurch wrote:
  • 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.
I'm not a Christian (or any religion), but it seems to me that the two key figures of the NT - Jesus and Paul - held slightly different views about righteousness before God.

It's hard to know what Jesus actually believed and taught, but one of the most basic themes would have to be the 'kingdom of God' which he said was at hand. In Matthew and Luke (the Q passages) he says something to the effect that among those born of men there are none greater than John the Baptist, but the least in the kingdom of God is greater than John; and the Law and the Prophets were until John, but since then the kingdom of God had been preached and forceful men lay hold of it. Too lazy to find references atm, but I've got a good feeling about Matthew 12. Similarly in the earliest gospel, Mark, Jesus' violations of the existing Sabbath rules (ch 2 and 3) seem to imply he was advocating a new system, and in ch. 4 he talks at length about his 'kingdom of God,' describing it in terms of an organic, growing process.

It's possible that Jesus (perhaps considering himself the messiah) was preaching something along the lines of the 'new covenant' which Jeremiah wrote of in his ch. 31:31-34. Jesus may have been talking about the growth in each person of God's kingship over their lives, the process, as Jeremiah puts it, of God writing his laws on his people's hearts and minds.

Paul's views are more easily understood I think; he writes that he was a Pharisee and extremely zealous for the Jewish law, even persecuting the Christian sect up until his conversion. After that he was a very strong advocate of salvation by grace, through faith (cf Ephesians 2, though some scholars consider the epistle spurious). In the genuine epistle to the Roman church, Paul even seems to deny human free will, saying that some people are God's vessels of wrath, prepared for destruction (Romans 9). From his earlier extreme of doing his utmost to earn God's favour, Paul seems to have had some kind of breakdown or turnabout and gone to the opposite extreme of believing that God's favour has virtually nothing to do with us. (Though like Calvin, who apparently took Paul's views very seriously, Paul stopped short of any complaceny; Calvin is noted for having said something along the lines of "If you're not predestined, make yourself predestined!")

The common theme in those two views obviously is that it's God's work in the believer which ultimately produces righteousness; whether by a moment of salvation by grace through faith in Jesus, from which believers "work out their salvation with fear and trembling" (Philippians 2 I believe), or in the process of growing holiness of the 'kingdom of God.' Both Paul and Jesus were very concerned with good works, helping the poor, peaceful and holy living. While both of them appear to have preached a particular way as being the ideal, off the top of my head I'm not sure either of them suggested that God scorned ethical non-believers: In the synoptic parables of the good samaritan and the sheep and the goats (Matt. 25), Jesus is alleged to have emphasised the importance of good deeds above religious affiliation, and likewise in his comparison of Jews and Gentiles in Romans 2 Paul says that those Gentiles who follow the requirements of the law show that they are a law unto themselves, guided by their consciences.



Obviously, there are passages in the NT which suggest that non-belief in Jesus leads to damnation, most notably in the Johannine works. But given the various other contradictions found throughout the whole bible, folk who believe the bible is the Word of God have to twist themselves in all kinds of knots and lose all credibility long before they get 'round to condemning me to Hell :lol:

It is also, I'd suggest, very much the easy way out for folk in wealthy countries to simply 'believe and be saved' - believe in a man who said those who would be his disciples must forsake all and take up their cross to follow him!

Dantalion
Guru
Posts: 1588
Joined: Mon May 28, 2012 3:37 pm

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

Post #17

Post by Dantalion »

1213 wrote:
marketandchurch wrote:
  • Topic of Debate: A Good God would not send to hell a decent person, simply for not believing in his son.
I think that depend on what believing means in that. Does it mean that you believe what Jesus said, or does it mean that you believe Jesus exist.

Bible says for example:
Jesus said to him, "'You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.' This is the first and great commandment. A second likewise is this, 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.
Mat. 22:37-39
For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments. His commandments are not grievous.
1 John 5:3
For the commandments, "You shall not commit adultery," "You shall not murder," "You shall not steal," "You shall not give false testimony," "You shall not covet," and whatever other commandments there are, are all summed up in this saying, namely, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." Love doesn't harm a neighbor. Love therefore is the fulfillment of the law.
Romans 13:9-10

According to those love to God means that person keeps Gods commandments that are fulfilled with love your neighbor as yourself. Why wouldnt any decent person believe that and live according to that?

If you understand that the Law is good, I think you are righteous and according to Jesus righteous shall have eternal life. But I dont think there is no reason why any person must believe to eternal life. It is enough if he understands that Gods will is good and wants to live according to it. I think that is decent. The eternal life can be then the bonus that surprises decent person in the end. :)

I also want to says, if only reason to do right is that person tries to gain eternal life, I think he is then not very righteous.
Well, just because some Guru can rehatch the much-older-than-christianity's 'golden rule' doesn't mean I should believe every word his says, or think it not ridiculously cruel that you can get send to eternal hell for not believing it.

If you talk to a lot of 'moderate' christians you'll find that what they basically get out of their religion is the golden rule, which predates their religion, (aside from not being that practical, I'm not going to love my neighbor if he's a serial rapist)

Justin108
Banned
Banned
Posts: 4471
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2012 5:28 am

Post #18

Post by Justin108 »

bluethread wrote: The problem is the premise. Paul refers to the principle espoused by Yesha'yahu when He says, (Rom. 3:10) "As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:". It is a matter of proximate cause. If a man is headed for a brick wall, does he hit the brick wall because he was headed for it, or because he did not call onstar and have them turn off the engine? In that case would one fault onstar for only saving those who call?
So not one of us is without sin. It is impossible to live without sin (or at least so improbable that it has never happened). It is in our very nature to sin. Yet god, who gave us our nature, is punishing us for having the very nature he gave us. Where is the sense in that?

aglassdarkly
Scholar
Posts: 499
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2012 4:16 pm

Post #19

Post by aglassdarkly »

Justin108 wrote:
bluethread wrote: The problem is the premise. Paul refers to the principle espoused by Yesha'yahu when He says, (Rom. 3:10) "As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:". It is a matter of proximate cause. If a man is headed for a brick wall, does he hit the brick wall because he was headed for it, or because he did not call onstar and have them turn off the engine? In that case would one fault onstar for only saving those who call?
So not one of us is without sin. It is impossible to live without sin (or at least so improbable that it has never happened). It is in our very nature to sin. Yet god, who gave us our nature, is punishing us for having the very nature he gave us. Where is the sense in that?
We got our sinful nature by freely choosing disobedience over obedience. A sinful nature is God's punishment. And a sinful nature doesn't mean we must sin, or are forced to sin, but that we tend to sin. Each sin is a choice and is still punishable.

Justin108
Banned
Banned
Posts: 4471
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2012 5:28 am

Post #20

Post by Justin108 »

aglassdarkly wrote:
Justin108 wrote:
bluethread wrote: The problem is the premise. Paul refers to the principle espoused by Yesha'yahu when He says, (Rom. 3:10) "As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:". It is a matter of proximate cause. If a man is headed for a brick wall, does he hit the brick wall because he was headed for it, or because he did not call onstar and have them turn off the engine? In that case would one fault onstar for only saving those who call?
So not one of us is without sin. It is impossible to live without sin (or at least so improbable that it has never happened). It is in our very nature to sin. Yet god, who gave us our nature, is punishing us for having the very nature he gave us. Where is the sense in that?
We got our sinful nature by freely choosing disobedience over obedience. A sinful nature is God's punishment. And a sinful nature doesn't mean we must sin, or are forced to sin, but that we tend to sin. Each sin is a choice and is still punishable.
A teenage boy who (very naturally) lusts after seeing a beautiful woman is sinning. It is in his very nature to respond in this way yet it is "sinful" as it is against God's will.

As for being "disobedient". One can only be disobedient to received orders. And unless an order is heard in a credible manner, it cannot be said to be received and therefore one cannot be held accountable for it. In short, I cannot be held accountable for not following god's orders since I've never heard god ordering me to do or not do anything. Sure there is the Bible, but I have no reason to believe it is the word of God.

Post Reply