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.

[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.

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.

Where the heck did you get "lied" from that?

Look, Genesis was never meant to be taken literally. The fact that so many so-called "Christians" have insisted that it be taken so has been extremely detrimental. When you start to see it as a parable, then it starts to make more sense.

Now, you're operating within the "science has proven all of this stuff a myth" paradigm. I'd agree with a lot of the things you insist are myth - I'd say it was never meant to be taken as anything else. People could learn so much more from it if they just accepted that. So let's all say "there is no god" and move on? There's so much in this world that science can't explain that way - meaning, purpose, where did we come from, why are we all connected....

Watch the documentary "I Am" sometime - it's all sciencey and stuff. Made by the guy who directed Ace Ventura and a bunch of Jim Carrey's other movies. It'll blow your mind.


What I take away from the "tree of the knowledge of good and evil" is this - it's a parable. It's meant to illustrate how this world got the way it is - with everyone fighting over everything. God pointed out a tree that had unripe fruit - said "don't eat it." Adam and Even ended up making an idol out of this tree, thinking it would make them like God. They eat, it's unripe and unsatisfying, it doesn't make them like God any more then they were before...they're disappointed, and now they're afraid of God because they disobeyed. Here's the thing, though - God is love. God is described by Jesus as the Father all the time. And He's a perfect Father. So why did He kick them out of the garden? It's not because of the fruit, it's because of what came after the fruit: the blame game. Adam and Eve are pointing fingers everywhere, and fighting like cats and dogs! And what's more, the garden is not meant to be taken literally, either. It's metaphorical for a state of peace and harmony.

[JohnA]

[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.

Where the heck did you get "lied" from that?

Look, Genesis was never meant to be taken literally. The fact that so many so-called "Christians" have insisted that it be taken so has been extremely detrimental. When you start to see it as a parable, then it starts to make more sense.

Now, you're operating within the "science has proven all of this stuff a myth" paradigm. I'd agree with a lot of the things you insist are myth - I'd say it was never meant to be taken as anything else. People could learn so much more from it if they just accepted that. So let's all say "there is no god" and move on? There's so much in this world that science can't explain that way - meaning, purpose, where did we come from, why are we all connected....

Watch the documentary "I Am" sometime - it's all sciencey and stuff. Made by the guy who directed Ace Ventura and a bunch of Jim Carrey's other movies. It'll blow your mind.


What I take away from the "tree of the knowledge of good and evil" is this - it's a parable. It's meant to illustrate how this world got the way it is - with everyone fighting over everything. God pointed out a tree that had unripe fruit - said "don't eat it." Adam and Even ended up making an idol out of this tree, thinking it would make them like God. They eat, it's unripe and unsatisfying, it doesn't make them like God any more then they were before...they're disappointed, and now they're afraid of God because they disobeyed. Here's the thing, though - God is love. God is described by Jesus as the Father all the time. And He's a perfect Father. So why did He kick them out of the garden? It's not because of the fruit, it's because of what came after the fruit: the blame game. Adam and Eve are pointing fingers everywhere, and fighting like cats and dogs! And what's more, the garden is not meant to be taken literally, either. It's metaphorical for a state of peace and harmony.

The lie is taken from your own admission. Am convinced your god speaks to you, hence you wrote those words in BOLD.

So, now Genesis is not to be taken literally?
Why did you not say this from the start?
Why then keep on making up more contradictions and lies about it?
What else in your scripture is not to be taken literally?
Where did you get this "recipe" what is literal, what is parable, what is myth and what is true in your scripture? [Gee I do not need another book or set of rules or "recipe" to interpret my Harry Potter book. Why is this needed is this comes from some omnipotent god?]

What is the science crap you giving now. Science and religion are not opposed. What is different is the way of thinking, the process in obtaining information about reality: religion declares truth based on faith (no evidence) vs Science evaluates and forms opinions based on the evidence that has been peer reviewed to the point where the source & originator become irrelevant to the knowledge gained. There are no authorities in science, it is not a hierarchy, no dogmas, no worship places, etc. You can not compare the two. That is your mistake; you do not understand science and therefore you automatically think it is against Christianity (your denomination which is on of some 40,000) and erroneously compare it. That is ignorance at its highest. Religion poisons everything, science gives us things that work. They do not appose each other; its like saying 9/11 opposes the internet. That is just wrong.

There's so much in this world that science can't explain that way - meaning, purpose, where did we come from, why are we all connected....

HU. That is your ignorance speaking. How dare you speak for science when you already admitted you reject it?

Science has answered very one of you questions listed.
Meaning / purpose: Find your own purpose. There is no "grand" purpose.
We came from stars, which originated out of the inflationary period of the expansion of the universe.
All living things (on earth) are connected via DNA. We are connected because we share a common ancestor, the first one.

So what if science has not answered other questions? We are not at the pinnacle of scientific knowledge. At least science looks for answers based on evidence, not just wishful thinking. You clearly want answers that are not allowed to be questioned. That is why you are now with your tail between your legs on this Adam rubbish.


You just said that this Genesis and Eden thing are myth and now you ramble on again how this god is one of love but authored evil. That makes no sense.
Your dogma has been shown wrong yet you want me to mop the floor more with it. NO, I refuse to do that. You, yourself have shown your dogma to be just a myth. I had nothing to do with this, so stop leading yourself down the dogma slaughter house. I refuse to engage more with your irrational and illogical dogma. I will tolerate you, but not your dogma.

[fatherlearningtolove]

[Replying to post 399 by JohnA]

Whoah, whoah, whoah - you're making a lot of assumptions about me. And they're very inaccurate. No, I do not reject science. I do not think they are opposed. Science and religion go hand in hand very well when you aren't religious about being anti-religion or religious about being anti-science.

You're making the same mistake most Christians make. You live in the "all or nothing" paradigm. You think either it must all be taken literally, and that means that if any part of it is false the whole thing is false, or it must all be taken metaphorically (and then you conclude: what's the point?). But you read Harry Potter. And there are moral lessons that can be found in Harry Potter. You silly, silly person - Harry Potter is a fairy tale! Why waste your time on such rubbish? (That was not to be taken seriously.)

You have to keep in mind that the Bible is a collection of different writings. It's like a cultural library. Some books are written as history (and we read history books in school with the knowledge that the writer may be biased - so stop reading history altogether? No.), some books contain law code, some books are mythology, some books contain parables, some contain moral code, theology, philosophy, etc. You have to keep in mind the genre as you read it, and then decide what to do with it. It is difficult, I realize this. And to make matters worse, some of the books (Genesis, I'm looking at you) are actually various writings from multiple authors that have been put together (Genesis chapter 1 and Genesis chapter 2 come from different sources). I recognize the difficulty this presents. You say "well, because it's so difficult, I am going to run away and not ever think about it." I say "it's a challenge! Yay!"

[JohnA]

[Replying to post 399 by JohnA]

Whoah, whoah, whoah - you're making a lot of assumptions about me. And they're very inaccurate. No, I do not reject science. I do not think they are opposed. Science and religion go hand in hand very well when you aren't religious about being anti-religion or religious about being anti-science.

You're making the same mistake most Christians make. You live in the "all or nothing" paradigm. You think either it must all be taken literally, and that means that if any part of it is false the whole thing is false, or it must all be taken metaphorically (and then you conclude: what's the point?). But you read Harry Potter. And there are moral lessons that can be found in Harry Potter. You silly, silly person - Harry Potter is a fairy tale! Why waste your time on such rubbish? (That was not to be taken seriously.)

You have to keep in mind that the Bible is a collection of different writings. It's like a cultural library. Some books are written as history (and we read history books in school with the knowledge that the writer may be biased - so stop reading history altogether? No.), some books contain law code, some books are mythology, some books contain parables, some contain moral code, theology, philosophy, etc. You have to keep in mind the genre as you read it, and then decide what to do with it. It is difficult, I realize this. And to make matters worse, some of the books (Genesis, I'm looking at you) are actually various writings from multiple authors that have been put together (Genesis chapter 1 and Genesis chapter 2 come from different sources). I recognize the difficulty this presents. You say "well, because it's so difficult, I am going to run away and not ever think about it." I say "it's a challenge! Yay!"

Your dogma has just been shown wrong by yourself, yet you hammer on it.

Even your NT is full of contradictions, even your Jesus was a fraud.

Want to take me on and discuss that, show you how ALL of it is myth?

Christianity is evil at it roots, preaching to hate non believers. At its core, it is poison.

There are mush better rubbish books to read than the bible. Stop making excuses for your incoherent dogma.

Science and religion do not go hand in had. I just gave you an example how the thinking process and other things are different, and yet you close you eyes/ears and let your dogma utter this drivel that they go hand in hand. You just "proved" my point by letting your dogma speak. That is disgusting.

[Choir Loft]

fatherlearningtolove Replying to post 386 by Choir Loft:
"Do you even know anything about Satan? Have you ever done a study on this character?"

I'm afraid I know more about the kingdom of satan than I would like to know. Thank you for asking.

fatherlearningtolove Replying to post 386 by Choir Loft:
"Here's something interesting about "him"

Beginning with your first sentence you betray a certain level of ignorance on the subject. satan and the minions of fallen angels in its kingdom are spirits. As such they have no gender.

satan has no cojones.

The pronoun IT is the proper context when referencing spirits, except for God the Father. He has chosen the masculine pronoun for Himself, so that is how God is referenced. All others are gender neutral including but not limited to the Holy Spirit.

fatherlearningtolove Replying to post 386 by Choir Loft:
"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."

"Speaking the truth to one who loves it not invites only interpretation."
- George McDonald

You are 'cobbling together' a generic statement from limited scholarship of Holy Writ and limited working knowledge of spiritual experience.
The term devil, satan, tempter (you forgot to list 'tempter'), etc. are all a nom de guerre for 'the evil one'.

Ask anyone who's had a deeply spiritual experience to describe what happened to them and the first thing out of their mouth will be the phrase "it's hard to describe".
The next thing you'll hear or read is a litany of metaphors. It was like this, they'll say, or it was like that.

Temporal physical experiences of eternal spiritual things are almost impossible to describe. To add insult to the injury, human pride enters the equation to muddy the definitions. Many who've had no spiritual experience at all flatly deny the possibility that someone else could have what they do not. As a result you've got a real communication conundrum.

It's all about definitions and until certain word meanings are agreed upon spiritual understanding cannot follow.

fatherlearningtolove Replying to post 386 by Choir Loft:
"But there is NOTHING in the Bible to give us the indication that they (references to the devil) are supposed to be one and the same!"

Quite the contrary.

ALL such references in the Bible are quite clearly pointed in one of two directions; the devil who tempts and human self-will that yields to temptation.
On the day self-will yields to temptation it loses its concept of self. One becomes quite literally lost in sin.

A good example is the addict. Once addicted the human loses all self-identity - at that point its all about the drug. The only way for a person in this state of lost-ness to recover his self identity is to lose himself to Christ.

The dead know nothing.

This is the nature of eternal torment - that at the point of death all is lost INCLUDING self-identity.

You cannot party in hell if you don't know who you are or where you are.(*)

And if you don't know these two things, you cannot find your way to salvation.
This is what it means to be spiritually lost. You can taste it even on earth.
Since the human spirit lasts forever, the lost-ness lasts forever.

It's rather like the song about the Hotel California. You can check in, but you can never leave.

fatherlearningtolove Replying to post 386 by Choir Loft:
"...don't get caught in the trap of accusing everyone and in so doing end up accusing yourself."

There follows a misquote of Christ Jesus
"Do not judge, or you too will be judged."

Three things are wrong with this argument.

(1) THE QUOTATION is used as a justification of sin by those who love it.
By those who love the darkness of sin rather than the light of truth.
They attempt to hide in their sin by denying anyone else's definition of it and thus attempt to deny it's consequences.
If there is any love involved in the process then love would warn of the consequences of sin not deny it's existance.

2) ALL MEN ARE SINNERS.
"It takes one to know one", they say.
Who better to identify sin than one who has also sinned?
Who better to accuse of sin than one who knows it when they see it?
Who better to warn of judgment and to show the way out than one who has been under it and who has escaped?

3) Which of the ten commandments offends you?
When did it become right to steal, lie, cheat and murder?
At what point may that which is good be interpreted to be wrong?
Since when is it wrong to call sin wrong, to speak of wickedness as abhorrent to God?

Only the wicked are offended when they are told they are sinners.

fatherlearningtolove Replying to post 386 by Choir Loft:
"I should not assume ANYONE is going to hell?"

All men die. What happens next?

This is the point of contention and this is the point wherein subjective personal opinion contradicts the Word of God.
Opinion, I might add, that has been tainted by the fall - BY THE FRUIT OF THE KNOWLEDGE OF GOOD AND EVIL.
Opinion which says God is a liar and no man will suffer eternal damnation. The opinion is a lie of satan.

It was a lie in the Garden of Eden and it is a lie today.

fatherlearningtolove Replying to post 386 by Choir Loft:
"You can't fight hell with hell. The only thing that stops hell is love."

Love is subjective and will not save anyone!

On the human level, love is nothing more than hormonal secretions and social conditioning.
It is the activity of animals and it is used by satan to ensnare the unwary.
You will not find your belief that 'love saves' on any page in the Bible and you will not find it anywhere in heaven or in hell.
In point of fact the path to hell is paved with stones of love.
If you don't know this, then you have no understanding of satan or the power of sin.

The only way to fight hell is with tears and blood and death. That's what the Bible says and that's why Christ died on the cross.

ONLY THE BLOOD OF JESUS CAN SAVE.

All the love in the world will not save a single human soul from hell or from the lies of the evil one.
satan uses love to tempt into sin and the fruit of sin is death.
Christ, by means of HIS love, died upon the cross so that His blood can save us from our sins.

Therein lies your greatest error.
You know not what power causes your own death.
It is the power of sin masquerading as love.

"UNLESS A MAN IS BORN AGAIN - OF WATER AND THE BLOOD - HE CANNOT SEE THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN."
- Jesus

Repent and be saved, time is short. Reject Christ and His blood and you shall surely die in your sins.

To fatherLearningToLove - you would be better served learning of the power of the blood rather than that of satan and sin.

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

(*) "They are wild waves of the sea, foaming up their shame; wandering stars, for whom blackest darkness has been reserved forever."
Jude 1:13[font=Times New Roman][/font]

[fatherlearningtolove]

Your dogma has just been shown wrong by yourself, yet you hammer on it.

Even your NT is full of contradictions, even your Jesus was a fraud.

Want to take me on and discuss that, show you how ALL of it is myth?

You have much anger. I am sorry you have been hurt so much.

You ever seen a trial? You know what happens when you have a bunch of eyewitnesses? Their stories do not match. There are contradictions and differences. If there weren't, you know what they call that? Corroboration. And it's the best tip off that a set-up is going on. When the stories match perfectly, they know the witnesses all talked to each other and made sure they all had their stories straight.

Yeah, there are contradictions in the New Testament. That strengthens the case that there actually was a figure named Jesus who lived during that time period. Many, many histories, Christian and non-Christian, believe that there was such a character. They don't all agree on what exactly he did or said or who exactly he was. But they are all convinced that he lived and had an effect on history.

[Choir Loft]

[Replying to post 399 by JohnA]

Whoah, whoah, whoah - you're making a lot of assumptions about me. And they're very inaccurate. No, I do not reject science. I do not think they are opposed. Science and religion go hand in hand very well when you aren't religious about being anti-religion or religious about being anti-science.

You're making the same mistake most Christians make. You live in the "all or nothing" paradigm. You think either it must all be taken literally, and that means that if any part of it is false the whole thing is false, or it must all be taken metaphorically (and then you conclude: what's the point?). But you read Harry Potter. And there are moral lessons that can be found in Harry Potter. You silly, silly person - Harry Potter is a fairy tale! Why waste your time on such rubbish? (That was not to be taken seriously.)

You have to keep in mind that the Bible is a collection of different writings. It's like a cultural library. Some books are written as history (and we read history books in school with the knowledge that the writer may be biased - so stop reading history altogether? No.), some books contain law code, some books are mythology, some books contain parables, some contain moral code, theology, philosophy, etc. You have to keep in mind the genre as you read it, and then decide what to do with it. It is difficult, I realize this. And to make matters worse, some of the books (Genesis, I'm looking at you) are actually various writings from multiple authors that have been put together (Genesis chapter 1 and Genesis chapter 2 come from different sources). I recognize the difficulty this presents. You say "well, because it's so difficult, I am going to run away and not ever think about it." I say "it's a challenge! Yay!"

Your dogma has just been shown wrong by yourself, yet you hammer on it.

Even your NT is full of contradictions, even your Jesus was a fraud.

Want to take me on and discuss that, show you how ALL of it is myth?

Christianity is evil at it roots, preaching to hate non believers. At its core, it is poison.

There are mush better rubbish books to read than the bible. Stop making excuses for your incoherent dogma.

Science and religion do not go hand in had. I just gave you an example how the thinking process and other things are different, and yet you close you eyes/ears and let your dogma utter this drivel that they go hand in hand. You just "proved" my point by letting your dogma speak. That is disgusting.

If there is a lie, you have not identified it.
If there is a contradiction, you have not shown it.
If there is myth, you have not proved it.

And if there is anything close to hate and misrepresentation you yourself are guilty for you have provided nothing here to substantiate your argument except your own venom.

Repent and be saved. Reject the mercy of Christ and His grace and you will die in your sins.

He who calls good evil and who sows the seeds of discontent shall reap judgment from his own mouth.

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

[fatherlearningtolove]

[Replying to post 404 by Choir Loft]

Dude. You're not helping. You really think that insisting to someone who has been hurt by the church that they REPENT!!!! SINNER!!!! You really think that's going to have a positive effect? This is the reason why the church is dying. This is the reason for the "rise of the nones". You're not helping.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 405 by fatherlearningtolove]

As an atheist I think he has a point none of those claims made in that post were supported not that there isn't a plethora of evidence and threads dedicated to it.

your right in the sense that the fire and brimstone style of evangelism puts a bad taste in peoples mouth, but it's hardly the reason for churches inevitable collapse from prominence. If people don't like that message they just go to a different church. like maybe a church you attend or no church at all but a private faith. instead we are seeing a growing trend in non-belief in Abrahamic religion. So it appears the problem lies in the message itself not the messenger. now that we live in an age of greater intellectual freedom where we can choose our faith Christianity is on its decline.

which brings us back to the question the op presented. There is a message of haves and have nots in the bible regardless of your belief in hell. why would a good god do this?

maybe just maybe your god isn't perfect despite his/her claims to the contrary. An imperfect god can deceive and if he/she/it decided to say that it is perfect there is no one but it's creation to hold it accountable

[pokeegeorge]

[Replying to post 406 by DanieltheDragon]

which brings us back to the question the op presented. There is a message of haves and have nots in the bible regardless of your belief in hell. why would a good god do this?

To test us. Life is a test and challenge. God has challenged us to be faithful and good.