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.

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

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

Post #511

Post by JohnA »

Stan wrote: [Replying to post 428 by JohnA]

1) Faith IS evidence, and I didn't say you need faith, Paul did in Romans, which I believe is the INSPIRED Word of God. I asked you not to prevaricate, because I NEVER said any such thing. Faith is absolutely required for belief.

2) Again you prevaricate and if this is your style I'll just STOP responding. Your conclusions are based on flawed data input. Having contingencies for what man of his own free will decides to do is not the same as creating, but I'm sure you know this.

NOW you are making deliberate false conclusions. Your very limited human brain and mind is the reason you cannot comprehend God or his plan and obvious you were NOT serious about knowing Him.

What you need to do is stop trying to impress others and have an HONEST debate, so you can learn TRUTH.

That would be your flawed rational, but the TRUTH is you need to be. At this point I doubt very much you are genuinely interested,so I'll just end this conversation now.

You have been properly instructed.
Re-posting as I think you missed it:

1) Faith is evidence that people can believe in things for which there is absolute no evidence for. That is very clear in Heb 11:1.
Romans 3:28 says you need faith and no deeds to be saved.
This says salvation is by grace alone (Ephesians 2:8) and salvation is through Christ alone (Acts 4:12). The Bible says you must have faith in order to be saved (Hebrews 11:6). This again stays you need faith and deeds (works) to be saved: James 2:24-26.
Yo are still arguing that your scripture is wrong and that I need to give up some of my critical faculties to believe that something is truth when there is only a vacuum of evidence for it. You can not even tell me what is I need to do to be saved other that to give up something (part of my critical faculties, and the fact that your scripture is contradicting itself).

2) So, your input is flawed? No wonder as it makes no sense. You have not answered my questions: Did you god create sin? What else did he not create? So, your god had no plan in mind when he created the universe? He did not plan for sin? How can I have free will when you god already knows what I will have for lunch tomorrow? How is that giving me any choice in deciding what to have?

So, your dogma does not add up, and you BLAME me for that? You can not convince me that I can be saved, nor what to be saved from; AND THAT IS MY MISTAKE?

You are arguing that your scripture is wrong (faith is wrong, you have evidence that it is not a myth, scripture is a contradiction), and that your god is incompetent (he did not create or plan for sin, yet it happened, and gave humans no free will).

So, I need to give up something (part of my critical faculties and/or the belief that your scripture is correct) to be saved from an incompetent god that did not create everything (could not create humans with free will).

How is that being saved?
I need to give up something to be saved? How is that saving, rescuing?
I need to be saved from the incompetent thing that could not give me free will? Surely you god already knows if I will repent or not. So why are you trying to change your god's already made up decision about my fictional fate?

The dogma you promote seems to be ridiculous. I think you agree, hence why your dogma instructs you to promote the believe that you know things that you can possibly can not know.

I have been instructed? Instructed to do what?
Is this your dogma again that is deeply repulsive to say that all non-believers are evil and deserve eternal punishment? That dogma is flawed and evil in itself. Just because your god gave me working critical faculties, therefore I am evil? How does that even makes sense?

Your dogma can not even convince me of a simple thing how to get saved and from what. Your dogma actually suggest that you want me to be saved from your god. And I agree!

User avatar
Stan
Scholar
Posts: 308
Joined: Thu Aug 29, 2013 11:15 pm
Location: Calgary

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

Post #512

Post by Stan »

Clownboat wrote: You just don't get it Stan.
I don't care if you know people that "think" they know everything, or if you know people that "claim" to know everything. I'm curious either way as to why you know either of these types of people, because I have never ran in to either.
"Think" or "know", matters not. Get it?
Now back to avoiding the question and calling me a liar, right?
When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. - Socrates
Oh trust me I get it. ALL you're doing now is back pedaling.
Why equivocate instead of just quoting what I said Clown?
As far as who you have met in your life, it really is of no consequence to the issue, except to add to the overall equivocation going on here.

Again you prevaricate by stating I called you a liar. This seems to be highly ingrained in your posting style. When a debate is lost one always attacks the winner. - ME!
Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth.
2 Tim 2:15
8-)

User avatar
Stan
Scholar
Posts: 308
Joined: Thu Aug 29, 2013 11:15 pm
Location: Calgary

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

Post #513

Post by Stan »

Clownboat wrote:
Stan wrote:
help3434 wrote: [Replying to post 501 by Stan]

How do you know that they think they know everything if they don't claim it? Are you a mind reader?

Actions speak much louder than words.
I'm curious. What actions do you observe that cause you to know that someone either "thinks" or "claims" that they know everything?

For the umpteenth time, I have NEVER stated I know anybody that CLAIMS to know everything. I'm NOT addressing it again and if you continue to harass me about it I'll report you.
Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth.
2 Tim 2:15
8-)

User avatar
Stan
Scholar
Posts: 308
Joined: Thu Aug 29, 2013 11:15 pm
Location: Calgary

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

Post #514

Post by Stan »

[Replying to post 508 by JohnA]

Just give me the post number John and I'll look at it. Seems I don't always get email notification from this site.
Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth.
2 Tim 2:15
8-)

User avatar
micatala
Site Supporter
Posts: 8338
Joined: Sun Feb 27, 2005 2:04 pm

Post #515

Post by micatala »

Stan wrote:
Clownboat wrote: You didn't say that Stan. Why would I try to prove something you didn't say?
Here is what you did say:
I know SOME people think they KNOW everything.
Exactly, so WHY did you say this?
Clownboat wrote: I have never met a person that has claimed to know everything.

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck and looks like a duck then it's a duck!
Clownboat wrote: I found it ridiculous because I have never met a person that claims to know everything. I then suggested that maybe we run in different circles. You know, you with people that claim to know everything, and me having never met a person that would make such a claim.
That's all good and well, and neither have I so why say it? Again you prevaricate here because I don't KNOW people who CLAIM to know everything as you keep saying I do. I know people who THINK they know everything.

Clownboat wrote: Whether you are avoiding telling the truth, or this is just a straw man is yet to be seen. I'm guessing you really don't know anyone that claims to know everything, and that your statement was just a bit of prevaricating, but you have yet to address that.
There can only be two reason why you insist on prevaricating in this fashion, and neither one is conducive to productive discussion so I won't discuss this with you ANY more.

Please play your games with someone else.



:warning: Moderator Warning


A comment has already been issued about these kinds of personal comments.

"Prevaricating" is a nice word, but you are essentially accusing someone of lying, and we would ask that you cease these types of comments.


Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.
" . . . the line separating good and evil passes, not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either, but right through every human heart . . . ." Alexander Solzhenitsyn

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

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

Post #516

Post by JohnA »

Stan wrote: [Replying to post 508 by JohnA]

Just give me the post number John and I'll look at it. Seems I don't always get email notification from this site.
It is in the post you responded to. Am not going to post it for the 3rd time.

User avatar
Stan
Scholar
Posts: 308
Joined: Thu Aug 29, 2013 11:15 pm
Location: Calgary

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

Post #517

Post by Stan »

JohnA wrote:
Stan wrote: [Replying to post 508 by JohnA]

Just give me the post number John and I'll look at it. Seems I don't always get email notification from this site.
It is in the post you responded to. Am not going to post it for the 3rd time.

Suit yourself.
Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth.
2 Tim 2:15
8-)

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

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

Post #518

Post by JohnA »

Stan wrote:
JohnA wrote:
Stan wrote: [Replying to post 508 by JohnA]

Just give me the post number John and I'll look at it. Seems I don't always get email notification from this site.
It is in the post you responded to. Am not going to post it for the 3rd time.

Suit yourself.
Ok. This uncalled rudeness.
Some want spoon feed since they rely on authorities to think for them.
It is post 508 (as noted twice now on your response). The questions were originally in post 495.
Can you see this. It is 508. Again. 508. Also was in post 495. Stan, see pay 495. Ok, Stan. You can also see post 508. Post 508.

I think you may have missed it Stan.

Stan. Can you respond now to post 508 or 495. Did I tell you that these are the same posts of mine? These are posts that I responded to your dogma claims and you refuse to address these questions.

Stan: post 508 or 495. Can you now respond Stan?

Have a look at posts 495 & 508 Stan. Ok?

User avatar
Choir Loft
Banned
Banned
Posts: 547
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2010 10:57 am
Location: Tampa

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

Post #519

Post by Choir Loft »

[Topic of Debate: A Good God would not send to hell a decent person, simply for not believing in his son.]

This statement is the subjective opinion of man. It won't save anybody. Ever.

It also presumes the ultimate conceit - that man should judge God and decide how God should behave or grant gifts. Tell me, wise one, how you will force God to your will? Will you issue Him a subpoena and drag Him into court? Will you jail Him and condemn Him to death if He does not comply? All this was tried and done long ago. Didn't work then. Won't work now. God has responded with a offer of pardon - yet men still refuse His gracious gifts. Not very clever on man's part if you ask my opinion.

You'd think that after 3,000 years people would finally 'get it'. Apparently they're dumber than they look. Not a clue. Here we have salvation freely offered to anyone who accepts it - and people are still looking a gift horse in the mouth.

God has decided how and when salvation will be dispensed. The giver decides the nature of the gift (of salvation). Even among men, the giver of a gift decides how and when a gift is given as well as how expensive it may be and what form it may take. If men can do this, why rob God?

Everything pivots on the blood. For three thousand years God has endlessly repeated that only the blood will save.

For the ancient Hebrews and Jews the temporary blood sacrifice of animals was sufficient to pay the debt of sin before God. When the angel of death visited Egypt and slew all the first born of the land, God turned away when the blood of a lamb was seen upon the doorway of the house. God 'passed over' his sentence of death when he saw the blood.

When Jesus died upon the cross God's own blood made permanent the payment for sin. God has promised that when he sees the blood sacrifice of Christ accepted upon the lives and in the hearts of men and women He will 'pass over' his sentence of death and wrath and punishment.

Everything pivots on the blood. For three thousand years God has endlessly repeated that only the blood will save.

Jesus promised that when a man is born of water (repentance) and of Jesus' blood - that man would see the Kingdom of God. It can't get any easier than that.

and that's just me, hollering from the choir loft...
R.I.P. AMERICAN REPUBLIC
[June 21, 1788 - October 26, 2001]

- Here lies Liberty -
Born in the spring,
died in the fall.
Stabbed in the back,
forsaken by all.

User avatar
Clownboat
Savant
Posts: 10033
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 3:42 pm
Has thanked: 1221 times
Been thanked: 1620 times

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

Post #520

Post by Clownboat »

Choir Loft wrote: [Topic of Debate: A Good God would not send to hell a decent person, simply for not believing in his son.]

This statement is the subjective opinion of man. It won't save anybody. Ever.

It also presumes the ultimate conceit - that man should judge God and decide how God should behave or grant gifts. Tell me, wise one, how you will force God to your will? Will you issue Him a subpoena and drag Him into court? Will you jail Him and condemn Him to death if He does not comply? All this was tried and done long ago. Didn't work then. Won't work now. God has responded with a offer of pardon - yet men still refuse His gracious gifts. Not very clever on man's part if you ask my opinion.

You'd think that after 3,000 years people would finally 'get it'. Apparently they're dumber than they look. Not a clue. Here we have salvation freely offered to anyone who accepts it - and people are still looking a gift horse in the mouth.

God has decided how and when salvation will be dispensed. The giver decides the nature of the gift (of salvation). Even among men, the giver of a gift decides how and when a gift is given as well as how expensive it may be and what form it may take. If men can do this, why rob God?

Everything pivots on the blood. For three thousand years God has endlessly repeated that only the blood will save.

For the ancient Hebrews and Jews the temporary blood sacrifice of animals was sufficient to pay the debt of sin before God. When the angel of death visited Egypt and slew all the first born of the land, God turned away when the blood of a lamb was seen upon the doorway of the house. God 'passed over' his sentence of death when he saw the blood.

When Jesus died upon the cross God's own blood made permanent the payment for sin. God has promised that when he sees the blood sacrifice of Christ accepted upon the lives and in the hearts of men and women He will 'pass over' his sentence of death and wrath and punishment.

Everything pivots on the blood. For three thousand years God has endlessly repeated that only the blood will save.

Jesus promised that when a man is born of water (repentance) and of Jesus' blood - that man would see the Kingdom of God. It can't get any easier than that.

and that's just me, hollering from the choir loft...
Here's the gig.
Before you can believe that you need to be saved, you need to believe that there is a god out there that loves you, but is also willing to send you to a lake of fire for eternity.

Great! We can be saved. But why should I believe in this god in the first place that is willing to send so many to eternal torment?

Then there is also the fact that I am just not OK with human sacrifice. If you have an affinity for blood or human sacrifices, I just can't understand it. All this talk about blood and human sacrifice makes me think of the Mayan's. Do you think they might have been on to something, or were they just barbaric?
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

Post Reply