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
Nickman
Site Supporter
Posts: 5443
Joined: Mon Sep 06, 2010 8:51 am
Location: Idaho
Been thanked: 1 time

Post #391

Post by Nickman »

Choir Loft wrote:
fatherlearningtolove wrote: [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.
Again, for those who do not know definitions and terms I submit the following from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

Morality- "codes of conduct put forward by a society"

Morality, therefore, is a human term, condition and culture. God is above and apart from human standards of behavior and has set His own standard for humanity (see 10 commandments.)
Seven out of ten of those commandments were already written years earlier in the Code of Hammurabi. So you really don't have an argument. The Babylonians didn't believe in Yahweh.

User avatar
Nickman
Site Supporter
Posts: 5443
Joined: Mon Sep 06, 2010 8:51 am
Location: Idaho
Been thanked: 1 time

Post #392

Post by Nickman »

fatherlearningtolove wrote: [Replying to post 386 by Choir Loft]
Do you even know anything about Satan? Have you ever done a study on this character? Here's something interesting about "him" - we've cobbled together the snake from the garden of Eden, Lucifer, "the Satan" (that's right, wherever you see "Satan" in your bible, the original language said "the Satan", which literally means "the accuser"), and the dragon into one character. But there is NOTHING in the Bible to give us the indication that they are supposed to be one and the same! It is very interesting to me that people have decided that "the accuser" is actually an entity, and always the same entity. Rather, I think this is a personification. But it doesn't really matter - even if there is a character, a separate entity named "Satan", the way to fight his goals would be the same: don't get caught in the trap of accusing everyone and in so doing end up accusing yourself. Jesus said:
Matthew 7:1-2
Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.
Now, if I'm not supposed to accuse anybody - no judging - wouldn't you say that it's logical that I should not assume ANYONE is going to hell?

You can't fight hell with hell. The only thing that stops hell is love. Love looks at the beloved and decides that they are not worthy of hell. Love bestows worth on a person and makes them worthy. Deciding that someone is "going to hell" does not do this - that's the accuser in you talking.
To add, satan as you said, comes from satawn meaning accuser. Ha satawn means the accuser and is used as a name or title. Devil comes from diabolos meaning "to strike" bolos "through" dia, aka to slander. That is why Paul tells the women of the church to not be diabolos.

Titus 2:3 The aged women likewise, that they be in behaviour as becometh holiness, not false accusers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things;

However, in other instances in the NT this word is rendered as devil and wrongfully so.

fatherlearningtolove
Apprentice
Posts: 131
Joined: Wed Sep 18, 2013 1:33 pm
Location: Chattanooga, TN
Contact:

Post #393

Post by fatherlearningtolove »

[Replying to post 390 by Nickman]

Thanks for the assist! You are a gentleman and a scholar!
"The tree is known by its fruits. If you want to understand the social and political history of modern man, study hell."
- Thomas Merton, "New Seeds of Contemplation"

My blog

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 #394

Post by ttruscott »

fatherlearningtolove wrote: [Replying to post 382 by Choir Loft]

Would you answer the question: how can eternal conscious torment possibly be seen as loving? Please.

...
Consider:
We know GOD loved all HIS creation but to reconcile that with Psalm 11. God Loves the Righteous and Hates the Wicked. we must assume HIS love turned to hate when they rejected HIM as their GOD and rejected HIS promises of election and salvation and turned to 'idols' in their hearts, self creating themselves as demons and devils.

Therefore true love for HIS elect and holy church would mean that HE must protect them from these eternal enemies by separating them forever from access to HIS church and to heaven.

The suffering they will feel in hell is a natural consequence of that place and that separation and though part of the judgment, is not the purpose of the judgment.

Hell = GOD's love for HIS Church.

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.

fatherlearningtolove
Apprentice
Posts: 131
Joined: Wed Sep 18, 2013 1:33 pm
Location: Chattanooga, TN
Contact:

Post #395

Post by fatherlearningtolove »

[Replying to post 392 by ttruscott]

You're reading the Bible like a constitution. And in doing so, you're not making any sense of it, because the Bible is VERY clear that God's love extends to ALL people! EVERYONE! When you try to put the puzzle together with ALL the pieces, you start to wonder if the psalm you referenced might not be talking about the WICKEDNESS rather than certain PEOPLE.
"The tree is known by its fruits. If you want to understand the social and political history of modern man, study hell."
- Thomas Merton, "New Seeds of Contemplation"

My blog

JohnA
Banned
Banned
Posts: 752
Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2013 5:11 am

Post #396

Post by JohnA »

Choir Loft wrote: [Replying to post 381 by JohnA]

Gen 2:17 is the truth. From the time of their sins, Adam & Eve were dismissed from fellowship with God. Never again did they enjoy times with him in a personal manner. This is evidence of spiritual death and it is still in effect today.

Once a man repents and experiences the second birth, fellowship with God is restored. The new life is a relationship with God not possible apart from the blood of Christ. Its result is eternal life with God.

Apart from redemption, the human soul will be stripped of everything at death including its identity. Damned souls wander like lonely stars in the endless void of eternity.

Reference to the knowledge of good and evil is not DATA. Knowledge of good and evil is a reference to self-will. When Adam and Eve became 'as gods' they determined their own definition of right and wrong and rejected that of God. This is exactly what we are doing here - discussing the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil.

It is not given to man to judge God or God's wishes. This is the core of sin.

and that's just me, hollering from the choir loft...
You are saying that spiritual death is when one has knowledge of good and evil.
Gen 3:24 says that only gods have knowledge of good and evil. Am glad your god confirms he is not the only god!
So your god did not want to let them have this knowledge of good and evil.

HU?

When god said that Adam would die if he disobeys, your god lied. he meant they would become knowledgeable like gods. Naturally you have to explain this dying as a spiritual death as a literal death would be render your god a liar. It seems to me that the serpent was the honest one here as he clearly told Eve she would not die (Gen 3:4), telling them they would gain knowledge.
Never again did they enjoy the times with this god in a personal matter, except for when this god made them garments (Gen 3:21) right after they were given knowledge of good and evil as the serpent said. hmmm, only on fictional character are doing the lying here: Yahweh.


Please answer these other questions. Saying that you refuse to answer because I am judging your god is nonsensical. That is just a lazy a cop out, and you are going against your god by not defending your faith as per 1 Peter 3:15<- That is a sin.

1. Why did your god not want Adam to have knowledge, instructing him not eat from the tree of knowledge?
2. How could Adam & Eve be obedient or have faith in your god since they had NO prior knowledge of good and evil (remember your god did not want them to have this knowledge)?
3. What went wrong in your god's factory as he clearly made defects as Adam and Eve disobeyed and had no faith in your god?
4. Since your god has foreknowledge, he knew that Adam would disobey him before he even made Adam. Do you think it was evil for your god to create Adam KNOWING in advance your god would doom all humans? Your god clearly had knowledge of evil.


Take your time.

fatherlearningtolove
Apprentice
Posts: 131
Joined: Wed Sep 18, 2013 1:33 pm
Location: Chattanooga, TN
Contact:

Post #397

Post by fatherlearningtolove »

[Replying to post 394 by JohnA]

I believe the fact that it is the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is a clue. Because everything God made up to that point was declared good. So, theoretically, Adam and Eve should have already known all about good - they were surrounded by it! So why wasn't it just called the tree of the knowledge of good? Well, I think it's a clue. See, “sin� in the original Greek meant “missing the mark�, and in Aramaic, the word for evil is also the word for “unripe�. So the original language for the “tree of the knowledge of good and evil� was actually more along the lines of “knowledge of ripe and unripe�, as the Aramaic word for “good� was the same word for “ripe�. With this insight into the Greek and Aramaic translations, we learn that there is a whole different dynamic to the understanding of “good� and “evil�, both subjectively (it's me who sees your actions as missing the mark) and objectively (your actions came from a place within you that was unloving or unready). But if the Hebrew for "good" is "ripe" and for "evil" is "unripe", then there is no judgment involved – it’s merely an essence of time. God declared us "ripe" but didn't necessarily declare us "ready" for the wisdom that would be necessary to hold good/evil and ripe/unripe in the paradox which arises in all Unity. We "sinned" or "missed the mark" when we took on the trait of distinguishing good from evil on the basis of judgment/valuation rather than seeing them as wholly present within the sacred. So perhaps the only true sin is when we live in black and white, and judge every other human being according to our own standards, rather than loving every creature God has made and seeking their wellbeing.
"The tree is known by its fruits. If you want to understand the social and political history of modern man, study hell."
- Thomas Merton, "New Seeds of Contemplation"

My blog

myth-one.com
Savant
Posts: 7469
Joined: Wed Aug 09, 2006 4:16 pm
Has thanked: 32 times
Been thanked: 98 times
Contact:

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

Post #398

Post by myth-one.com »

ttruscott wrote:What is death? A body without a spirit is dead. Is a spirit without a body dead? no, When Moses and Elijah appeared in spirit bodies with Jesus they were not 'dead' nor do I think they were dead a moment before.

So what is eternal death? Eternal existence with no body? Whereas eternal life has the resurrected spirit body? Sounds ok to me but then, how does Christ's death fit all this?

The other thing is the reason for a sacrifice to reconcile us with GOD? What is the meaning of that? I don't think that the meaning is found in the suffering as you guys have been talking about, but where is it? All I can see is that it (the magic) is in the blood which I can accept but I gots to know why is it in the blood and how, sigh.

What actually happened to Christ that achieved our atonement? Why did the death of an animal sacrifice show the way? Right from the garden of Eden, GOD made Adam and Eve wear skins of a sacrificed animal...and we know it was inadequate and we needed Christ.

All I can think of is, there is a mystery here, as C.S. Lewis said, "old magic." Those who stop short of finding out and scoff at the inconsistencies will have their reward but I know I will find out some day, maybe not here and now but I will. I can wait. And I don't mind sayin that I don't know everything about my religion of choice!

Don't think I'm going weak sister about my faith - what I got I got sure and strong but what I don't got, who cares who knows? I can live with it and maybe learn something. This give and take between philosophically divergent views of the same thing is good for me,

User avatar
help3434
Guru
Posts: 1509
Joined: Sun Feb 17, 2013 11:19 pm
Location: United States
Has thanked: 7 times
Been thanked: 33 times

Post #399

Post by help3434 »

[Replying to post 395 by fatherlearningtolove]

How can you be ripe but not ready? Ready is practically the definition of ripe.

JohnA
Banned
Banned
Posts: 752
Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2013 5:11 am

Post #400

Post by JohnA »

fatherlearningtolove wrote: [Replying to post 394 by JohnA]

I believe the fact that it is the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is a clue. Because everything God made up to that point was declared good. So, theoretically, Adam and Eve should have already known all about good - they were surrounded by it! So why wasn't it just called the tree of the knowledge of good? Well, I think it's a clue. See, “sin� in the original Greek meant “missing the mark�, and in Aramaic, the word for evil is also the word for “unripe�. So the original language for the “tree of the knowledge of good and evil� was actually more along the lines of “knowledge of ripe and unripe�, as the Aramaic word for “good� was the same word for “ripe�. With this insight into the Greek and Aramaic translations, we learn that there is a whole different dynamic to the understanding of “good� and “evil�, both subjectively (it's me who sees your actions as missing the mark) and objectively (your actions came from a place within you that was unloving or unready). But if the Hebrew for "good" is "ripe" and for "evil" is "unripe", then there is no judgment involved – it’s merely an essence of time. God declared us "ripe" but didn't necessarily declare us "ready" for the wisdom that would be necessary to hold good/evil and ripe/unripe in the paradox which arises in all Unity. We "sinned" or "missed the mark" when we took on the trait of distinguishing good from evil on the basis of judgment/valuation rather than seeing them as wholly present within the sacred. So perhaps the only true sin is when we live in black and white, and judge every other human being according to our own standards, rather than loving every creature God has made and seeking their wellbeing.
So god lied?

When I read a book, I do not need some random person (fatherlearningtolove) to interpret it for me. Especially if it is the word of am omnipotent god. Surely it should be crystal clear and not open for interpretation. Did I miss something?

Besides the fact that you completely ignored my questions and just rambled yourself into a self-confessed spiral on incoherence, you did do one thing: you showed that the stories are man-made, great ancient shepherds authoring a book full of contradictions. I salute you for this honesty. And I agree, the authors deserve some credit, even-though it does not stand up to scrutiny today as you convincingly showed.

It makes my day when the theists admit the myth.

Post Reply