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.

[ttruscott]

...

But you justify the distastefulness of "eternal conscious torment for some" by saying all deserve it.

CALL: where have I ever written ALL deserve hell? Only sinners deserve hell and only sinners are born on earth but there is a vastly greater number of loyal faithful elect than our poor straggly number of sinners down here.

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!"

That is an extremely worldly interpretation of my stance. I claim that all judgment from GOD is righteous and proper, ie, no torturous intent, the recipients are all guilty and that the suffering attenuated upon the verdict is a natural consequence, not a necessary decree of the judgement, that is, the fact of suffering does not prove the judgement is wrong or all criminals would all go free as they all claim to suffer from the verdict. Reread ME, not what you have heard before from others!

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

...

Which is what I do in my blog series "Checkmate For Hell".

I'm sure this summation will be very useful to someone but I wrestled with these things 35 years ago, refusing to let my understanding of one side of the argument CONTRADICT the other but always looking for a reconciliation that made the best reconciliation for them that could be found. When I was led to Pre-Conception Existence Theology, I realized I had found it.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts, but the logic of mine is from the Spirit I have faith is GOD so... <shrug>

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]

...

But you justify the distastefulness of "eternal conscious torment for some" by saying all deserve it.

CALL: where have I ever written ALL deserve hell?

Sorry, I had you mixed up with "Choir Loft", who said:

A good God would allow everyone, not just atheists, to go to hell.

That is an extremely worldly interpretation of my stance.

It's the interpretation of one who grew up in the church his whole life and got all A's in his theology classes, then in his 20's left the church for a while in complete disgust as a broken, lonely, angry soul. And then God called me back, repeatedly, and led me to the questions I needed to ask, which led me to reject these depraved views and cling to the God who is love (I John 4:8,16)

I claim that all judgment from GOD is righteous and proper, ie, no torturous intent, the recipients are all guilty and that the suffering attenuated upon the verdict is a natural consequence, not a necessary decree of the judgement, that is, the fact of suffering does not prove the judgement is wrong or all criminals would all go free as they all claim to suffer from the verdict. Reread ME, not what you have heard before from others!

Funny, I think along the same lines - God is just, judgment is based on natural consequences...but I don't think it's possible to come to the logical conclusion that this justice is eternal punishment (without throwing out significantly large portions of the Bible, or doing mental gymnastics to justify faulty and illogical interpretations of them). Rather, it fits nicely with the original wording: the original Greek language used a word for "punishment" that was also used to describe the pruning of trees. This wording implies that the punishment is not an end unto itself, but an end unto a means - a removing of the dead branches so that the tree can grow. God's justice is restorative and redemptive - it has purpose. Eternal conscious torment is an end unto itself, and it is sadistic cruelty.

I'm sure this summation will be very useful to someone but I wrestled with these things 35 years ago, refusing to let my understanding of one side of the argument CONTRADICT the other but always looking for a reconciliation that made the best reconciliation for them that could be found.

Funny, that's exactly what I'm doing. Which is what led me to questioning the translation of "aion" to "forever" or "eternal". This is the best way of reconciling ALL of the sets of passages without having to resort to crazy linguistic gymnastics in order to reconcile verses like:

I Corinthians 15:22
For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.

In this verse, Paul is saying that the VERY SAME SET that die because of Adam (that is, everyone who lives or ever lived before) WILL BE MADE ALIVE in Christ! And some people like to try to get around this by saying "oh, but he's just talking about the fact that there will be believers from all corners of the world." But if that's what he meant, then he's a terrible communicator! Are you saying Paul is a terrible communicator?

[pokeegeorge]

[Replying to post 347 by Clownboat]

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.

Maybe I got it mixed up with the World of Garp. One of those guys goes behind enemy lines and saves his own.

And I cried my eyeballs out the first time I saw it. And the second time.

And he was retarded. God saves his love for us retards. Halleluyah!

[pokeegeorge]

[Replying to post 348 by ttruscott]

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.

You are with me so far...

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.

The Spirit with us, indwelling us is not our will but ANOTHER who inhabits. But our end of covenant is to LLLLOOOOOVVVVEEE God with our will...of COURSE this takes will, what do you think agape love is?

Hugs and kisses? Heepy love, screw your friend's girlfriend and it's all cool?
Amy Grant and warm fuzzy feelings?

pokeegeorge wrote:
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, Smile... 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.

I thought you were a Calvinist when you were saying non-elect kids go to hell...sorry for the aspersion although now your position is confusing....

pokeegeorge wrote:
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.

'Grow our faith...' we are on the same page...

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...

Parable of the seeds...seeds in rocky soil can't grow and such. I never said it came from you...must have come from me, go figure. Still, you said 'Grow our faith...'

Amen brother in the faith. Now see God as one elohim and you will be fine.

[Nickman]

The dialogue at this point has become very convoluted. The answer to the primary post is quite simple. Restated it says;

"A good God would not send a decent Atheist to hell."

There are several self-contradictory implications in these eleven words.

First of all, how would you define 'decent atheist'?

Decency implies compatibility to some sort of common morality. As we all know, Atheists do not subscribe to Christian based morality - or any metaphysically based morality for that matter. To what standard, then are we going to peg the question if not the answer. It's rather like talking about apple juice when the questioner asks how to squeeze an orange. The two are not alike, therefore an answer common to both cannot be discerned.

The Bible states that God is not a respecter of men. That means that human definitions of morality don't have any currency in the halls of heaven. The morality of the community and the nation fall short of the morality of God.

"Never forget that everything Hitler did in Germany was legal."
- Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.

God's law is superior to that of man and states what man shall and shall not do. 'You shall not commit adultery', is a good example. Human law allows and even encourages adultery.

The end result of all this is that the definition of what is 'good' or 'decent' cannot be determined by human standards with regard to God. The Bible states this over and over again. With regard to human morality, God thus remains invisible. He cannot be seen in the laws and culture of man.

A good God would allow everyone, not just atheists, to go to hell.

Such a god would do this because a godless eternity is exactly what men want. Therefore, to give men what they want is only right and just.

But God is more than just. He is merciful as well and in this can God be truly seen.

Unfortunately the Atheist does not believe in either God or God's mercy, therefore he cannot avail himself of that which has been offered. Hence he determines his own eternal fate by rejecting God and God's mercy. Neither can he discern God or any of God's works because the atheist cannot provide an adequate definition of what he's looking for. (I'm not just picking on atheists here. No man can see God by means of his own definitions and criteria.)

Why then is there such a problem with divine judgment? Seems to me that those who want God get God. Those who don't get the fire. One cannot have it both ways on earth or in heaven.

The fool demands something that he has already rejected. How can it be otherwise?

and that's just me, hollering from the choir loft...

All I hear are unsupported claims. You claim atheists have no moral guide but if there is a God, he can judge atheists on his own moral standard, correct? If they meet that moral standard without any cohersion and bribery (heaven and hell) then why would a God send atheists to hell if they are not worthy of such a place? If atheists are doing the good things that God desired in the first place with Adam, and without any reason other than because they are good people, then wouldn't this be the fulfillment of your God's law? To do Good without any cohersion or bribery? To do good out of love and not because of a promise of heaven or threat of hell?

That is where your God messed up. He created reward and punishment for Good and Bad behavior. If you want someone to do Good for goodness sake, you teach them to do so without reward. You also teach them real consequences for bad behavior, such as; how it affects the other person. This is how you get children to grow up and do good without reward and punishment in the balance. This God displays a classic "carrot before the horse" approach. Thats a bad way to teach to say the least. Your God should have been smarter than that. Guess not.

[Nickman]

If the suicide mission was of God, then it is neither suicide or has the negative effluviance which you put upon it.

Changing the person who orders the suicide mission doesn't change the fact that it is a suicide mission.

Because Jesus also knew the glory promised before the foundation of the world.
He knew his bodily death was unto everlasting glory and life.

So he really didn't sacrifice anything. He just went from good to awesome. Doesn't sound like much suffering to me.

The Muslim THINKS this is true for himself. But his Allah never told him to kill innocents. So then he may not be in the next life with 57 virgins after all.

(Maybe that's a myth. How should I know).

So Jesus and Muslim suicide bombers are no different. Thanks for proving my point yet again. I like having you around.

[pokeegeorge]

If the suicide mission was of God, then it is neither suicide or has the negative effluviance which you put upon it.

Changing the person who orders the suicide mission doesn't change the fact that it is a suicide mission.

No volunteer would talk like you do. Apparently you would never see yourself ON one of these, since they are 'suicidal' after all...

And if not visualizing it before hand, probably never DOING it.

Way to go, hero.

Because Jesus also knew the glory promised before the foundation of the world.
He knew his bodily death was unto everlasting glory and life.

So he really didn't sacrifice anything. He just went from good to awesome. Doesn't sound like much suffering to me.

Just contradicted yourself, oddly. That makes it NOT a suicide after all, eh?

The Muslim THINKS this is true for himself. But his Allah never told him to kill innocents. So then he may not be in the next life with 57 virgins after all.

(Maybe that's a myth. How should I know).

So Jesus and Muslim suicide bombers are no different. Thanks for proving my point yet again. I like having you around.

Only if you presuppose the Muslim was doing the will of God or even the Arabic word for God, Allah....which I don't.

[Danmark]

If the suicide mission was of God, then it is neither suicide or has the negative effluviance which you put upon it.

Changing the person who orders the suicide mission doesn't change the fact that it is a suicide mission.

No volunteer would talk like you do. Apparently you would never see yourself ON one of these, since they are 'suicidal' after all...

And if not visualizing it before hand, probably never DOING it.

Way to go, hero.

Because Jesus also knew the glory promised before the foundation of the world.
He knew his bodily death was unto everlasting glory and life.

So he really didn't sacrifice anything. He just went from good to awesome. Doesn't sound like much suffering to me.

Just contradicted yourself, oddly. That makes it NOT a suicide after all, eh?

Neither of your conclusions follow logically from the facts you've given. In either version you propose a suicide scenario. The motive for the suicide does not make it the acts other than suicide.

[ttruscott]

[Replying to post 351 by fatherlearningtolove]

I can understand hell being temporary if we are not created to be eternal and I have not decidedly settled on that yet,

but I do not think there is any way that the reprobate can be reconciled without doing damage to HIS justice. That is, I still reject universal salvation, <shrug>

Peace, Ted