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.

pokeegeorge
Sage
Posts: 865
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 4:41 pm

Post #271

Post by pokeegeorge »

[Replying to post 263 by Clownboat]

I found nothing indicating a closet homosexual in any of Paul's writings...

Course I am not LOOKING for this...where do you find it? Not curious, about him.

Curious about you.

pokeegeorge
Sage
Posts: 865
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 4:41 pm

Post #272

Post by pokeegeorge »

fatherlearningtolove wrote:
pokeegeorge wrote: [Replying to post 260 by fatherlearningtolove]

Ain't no reason to fear when you are loving the love...

Except that people fear this loving may end, due to us someday or someway NOT loving the love...

...sorta like Ananias and Saphirra. Didn't love or something they did, (probably LIE about what they were giving...yet it wasn't no one else's business was it)?

They feared the Great Fear. Since they saw death firsthand. First generation believers, fearing the Great Fear. Whatanamazing thing.

How droll? Or whata happening? Hint: I think it really happened. For good reason.
Um...I'm not sure what you're trying to do here...it almost seems as though you're making my own point for me....
Most Christians can't love the love all the time, then it is a good time to fear.
That the loving will stop. From him or from his Source of Love.

Fear has a function. It is a natural and valuable CHECK to put us in right balance.

User avatar
Clownboat
Savant
Posts: 10038
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 3:42 pm
Has thanked: 1228 times
Been thanked: 1621 times

Post #273

Post by Clownboat »

pokeegeorge wrote: [Replying to post 263 by Clownboat]

I found nothing indicating a closet homosexual in any of Paul's writings...

Course I am not LOOKING for this...where do you find it? Not curious, about him.

Curious about you.
Your curiosities about me will have to wait for now. After all, my statement was about Paul, not myself. So, with that said:

Try reading Paul's writings once with the thought that he was a closet homosexual.

Paul's passions seemed to be incapable of being relieved. Why was that? Paul himself had written that if one "could not exercise self-control" that person should marry. "For it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion" (1 Cor. 7:9). But we have no evidence from any source that Paul ever married. Indeed, he exhorts widows and the unmarried to "remain single as I do" (1 Cor. 7:8). A primary purpose of sexual activity in marriage, according to Paul, was to keep Satan from tempting people "through lack of self-control" (1 Cor. 7:5). Why, when Paul seemed to be so consumed with a passion he could not control, would he not take his own advice and alleviate that passion in marriage? He did write that marriage was an acceptable, if not ideal, way of life. Still, however, marriage never seemed to loom for him as a possibility.

The passion that burned so deeply in Paul did not seem to be related to the desire for union with a woman. Why would that desire create such negativity in Paul, anyway? Marriage, married love, and married sexual desire were not thought to be evil or loathsome. Paul's sexual passions do not fit comfortably into this explanatory pattern. But what does?

Just imagine for a second that Paul may have been a homosexual:

Could this also be his thorn in the flesh, about which he wrote so plaintively? With this possibility in mind, listen once more to Paul's words: "And to help me keep from being too elated by the abundance of revelation, a thorn was given me in the flesh, a messenger of Satan, to harass me, to keep me from being too elated. Three times I sought the Lord about this, that it should leave me; but he said to me 'My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness' " (2 Cor. 12:7-9).
On another and perhaps earlier occasion, Paul had written, "You know it was because of a bodily ailment that I preached the gospel to you at first; and though my condition was a trial to you, you did not scorn or despise me but received me as an angel of God, as Christ Jesus" (Gal. 4:13). The word angel can also be translated messenger. Paul is the possessor of a condition that he believes to be incurable. It is a condition for which people might scorn or despise him.

To read more:
http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Christi ... y.aspx?p=1

1st Corinthians 7:1 7 Now for the matters you wrote about: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.�
You can give a man a fish and he will be fed for a day, or you can teach a man to pray for fish and he will starve to death.

I blame man for codifying those rules into a book which allowed superstitious people to perpetuate a barbaric practice. Rules that must be followed or face an invisible beings wrath. - KenRU

It is sad that in an age of freedom some people are enslaved by the nomads of old. - Marco

If you are unable to demonstrate that what you believe is true and you absolve yourself of the burden of proof, then what is the purpose of your arguments? - brunumb

pokeegeorge
Sage
Posts: 865
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 4:41 pm

Post #274

Post by pokeegeorge »

[Replying to post 271 by Clownboat]

I think Hitler was a closet homosexual, but I read a book about it and well the evidence was plentiful...Ernst Roehm his mentor was known to be one, he spent 2 years in Paris painting and galavanting, his wife was known to be a platonic companion, etc. Reports of his activities in the first world war indicated...girlfriends he never kissed or had sex with...well anyway.

But you seem to be off on a tangent:
Paul's passions seemed to be incapable of being relieved.
Paul's passion was SPIRITUAL since he was baptized in the Holy Spirit. He knew the JUMP and the LEAP to do Shema until the grisly end of him, his martyrdom which he received willingly.

To call this homosexual is a vast mistake in mental clarity. Even knowing that you have before said you were pentecostal? How can you even think this?

User avatar
Clownboat
Savant
Posts: 10038
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 3:42 pm
Has thanked: 1228 times
Been thanked: 1621 times

Post #275

Post by Clownboat »

pokeegeorge wrote: [Replying to post 271 by Clownboat]

I think Hitler was a closet homosexual, but I read a book about it and well the evidence was plentiful...Ernst Roehm his mentor was known to be one, he spent 2 years in Paris painting and galavanting, his wife was known to be a platonic companion, etc. Reports of his activities in the first world war indicated...girlfriends he never kissed or had sex with...well anyway.

But you seem to be off on a tangent:
Paul's passions seemed to be incapable of being relieved.
Paul's passion was SPIRITUAL since he was baptized in the Holy Spirit. He knew the JUMP and the LEAP to do Shema until the grisly end of him, his martyrdom which he received willingly.

To call this homosexual is a vast mistake in mental clarity. Even knowing that you have before said you were pentecostal? How can you even think this?
How?
I have a mind? I use it.

Test this out for yourself. (This will of course not prove that he was or wasn't, but an honest reading would make you go "hmmm, I wonder"). Read the writings of Paul with the thought in the back of your mind that he may have had homosexual feelings, you know, like lots of people do, many of them being Christian evangelists even up until this day and age.

This is a fact, and due to it you are mistaken in calling this a mistake in mental clarity.

Ted Haggard is not a mistake in mental clarity, but Paul is? This would be inconsistent.
You can give a man a fish and he will be fed for a day, or you can teach a man to pray for fish and he will starve to death.

I blame man for codifying those rules into a book which allowed superstitious people to perpetuate a barbaric practice. Rules that must be followed or face an invisible beings wrath. - KenRU

It is sad that in an age of freedom some people are enslaved by the nomads of old. - Marco

If you are unable to demonstrate that what you believe is true and you absolve yourself of the burden of proof, then what is the purpose of your arguments? - brunumb

User avatar
ttruscott
Site Supporter
Posts: 11064
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 5:09 pm
Location: West Coast of Canada
Been thanked: 3 times

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

Post #276

Post by ttruscott »

Nickman wrote:
... I got all sorts of less then appetizing replies, saying I'm screwed for eternity, if I don't accept Jesus.

...
People got screwed for eternity when they rejected YHWH as their GOD by their own true free will, putting their faith themselves or in another besides YHWH. Rejecting Jesus sealed their fate because that meant they had no access to GOD's forgiveness nor HIS sanctifying grace which could bring them back from their addiction to sin.

Faith in Jesus is GOD's way of bringing those back from sin who did not reject HIM. You don't believe in HIM or Jesus so I wonder what it matters to you how we define how people chose their hell?

GOD lets people choose for HIM or against HIM.
People make their choices.
Some who chose for HIM now reject HIS commands and must be brought back from their sin.
Those who rejected HIM totally are left to the natural consequences they were warned about but scorned.

What is wrong with this arrangement? How does this offend you?

How about this?
I invite you to live with me, my house my rules but the favours are wonderful.
Come or not, your choice but if you do not come into my house you will get a zombie plague you can't resist.
Some come into my house and you are safe. Those who come in all get inoculated against the virus but some leave to come under the spell of the virus anyway.
Some do not come into my house so never get the inoculation.

I can go out and get the inoculated people and bring them back to health but there is nothing I can do for those who refused the inoculation after they have the virus.

Why does GOD not just inoculate everybody, even against their will? Because it is a metaphor, not real, the choice to accept HIS offer or or not is by sacrosanct true free will which HE will never break.

So what part of this is offensive to you? Our free will? HIS protection of those who accept HIS offer? HIS refusal to go against the true free will decisions of some of HIS people, making them puppets but knowing they would pay the price? If HE wanted meat puppets HE did not have to offer anybody free will then at all, eh?

Peace, Ted
PCE Theology as I see it...

We had an existence with a free will in Sheol before the creation of the physical universe. Here we chose to be able to become holy or to be eternally evil in YHWH's sight. Then the physical universe was created and all sinners were sent to earth.

This theology debunks the need to base Christianity upon the blasphemy of creating us in Adam's sin.

User avatar
ttruscott
Site Supporter
Posts: 11064
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 5:09 pm
Location: West Coast of Canada
Been thanked: 3 times

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

Post #277

Post by ttruscott »

Nickman wrote:
...

Jesus wasn't murdered. He committed suicide. He said, "no man takes my life, I lay it down." Also, this was supposedly "God's plan" so it cannot be murder when God planned it. This would be the equivalent to either suicide or God hiring a hit-man to do his dirty work.
Suicide - self sacrifice. Hmmmm...

a military man knows the difference.

Peace, Ted
PCE Theology as I see it...

We had an existence with a free will in Sheol before the creation of the physical universe. Here we chose to be able to become holy or to be eternally evil in YHWH's sight. Then the physical universe was created and all sinners were sent to earth.

This theology debunks the need to base Christianity upon the blasphemy of creating us in Adam's sin.

User avatar
ttruscott
Site Supporter
Posts: 11064
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 5:09 pm
Location: West Coast of Canada
Been thanked: 3 times

Post #278

Post by ttruscott »

Nickman wrote:
...

What kind of life would that be to always be fearful and trembling that a deity is watching you all the time?
The practical life of a practical man...

who buys insurance,
who inoculates his kids,
who saves for his family's future,
who preps,
who upholds the law and upholds justice,
WHO PLANS FOR A LIFE AFTER DEATH FOR HIS WHOLE FAMILY, WITH TREMBLING HOPE AND FAITH.


You've been told that fear and trembling are not the same as we use it today... Why continue to pretend it means something horrific about our relationship with GOD?

Peace, Ted
PCE Theology as I see it...

We had an existence with a free will in Sheol before the creation of the physical universe. Here we chose to be able to become holy or to be eternally evil in YHWH's sight. Then the physical universe was created and all sinners were sent to earth.

This theology debunks the need to base Christianity upon the blasphemy of creating us in Adam's sin.

User avatar
AdHoc
Guru
Posts: 2254
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2012 11:39 am
Been thanked: 2 times

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

Post #279

Post by AdHoc »

Nickman wrote:
pokeegeorge wrote: [Replying to post 239 by Nickman]

Okay Nickman here we go:

defn suicide:

1.
the action of killing oneself intentionally.

So Jesus hung his own self up on the tree and hammered a nail into his last hand or wrist with his OTHER hand or wrist which was already nailed to the tree...

No wonder I go HEE HAW to some of your statements...
According to Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane, there was a plan.
“My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me. Yet not as I will, but as you will.� “My Father, if it is not possible for this cup to be taken away unless I drink it, may your will be done.� Look, the hour has come, and the Son of Man is delivered into the hands of sinners. 46 Rise! Let us go! Here comes my betrayer!�

Sounds like a planned death doesn't it?

John 10:18 No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I have received from my Father."

Sounds like suicide to me.
So soldiers who die to save others are committing suicide? There have been, over the years, many situations where soldiers knew that to obey orders meant certain death.
Its not suicide, not even close.

pokeegeorge
Sage
Posts: 865
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 4:41 pm

Post #280

Post by pokeegeorge »

[Replying to post 273 by Clownboat]


Ted Haggard was a hypocrite. Paul Silas is my hero.

You walk where angels fear to tread. With aplomb and debonair.

NOTHING indicates to me homosexual activity regarding Paul. But I think I may be honing in on your own divergent path of life. Denial, first of principle then of God.

Typical.

Post Reply