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

Post #571

Post by JohnA »

Danmark wrote:
JohnA wrote:
Danmark wrote:
myth-one.com wrote:
Danmark wrote:
myth-one.com wrote: If even one being knows the future, then everything is known and fixed, and there is no free will.
Some make that claim.
I think it overly simplistic.

We can all agree that 'knowledge' is a separate and distinct concept from 'event.'

I may have knowledge of some event, but that knowledge IS not the event. My knowledge did not cause the event. The event had its own independent causation.

This does not change, whether the event is in the past, the present, or the future.

Please describe a future event which you attended or of which you have knowledge.

Event: Something that takes place; an occurrence.

Future "events" have not taken place.

Exactly. They have not taken place any more than an omniscient god who knows the future exists.

But when you posit this absurd notion of an all knowing, all powerful 'god' this is the kind of thing you get, future events that have already taken place. It's your faith not mine.



Danmark,

If this omniscient god has foreknowledge, surely then he knows of all future events that will take place.

I have made an entry in my diary for a meeting next week. That is a my belief that I can justify and I can show evidence of it is true (my calender, and other attendees acceptance of the invite), so it is knowledge (not a belief nor faith). This is meeting is a future event that has not yet taken place.
Are you saying that this god does not know that this meeting is going to happen or not?
If so, then this god has either no foreknowledge or faulty foreknowledge.
If this god knows it will / or will not take place, then this god has perfect foreknowledge.

Again, I am not saying this god pulled the strings, made me create the meeting invite by controlling my thoughts and actions. Rather, think of it as a string that this god tensed & let go (that are the events that put things into motion), the god does not interfere with the string vibrations, but can predict exactly how it will vibrate. This 'meeting event' is merely vibration X of all possible n finite vibrations.

There is no god. This a 'How many angels can stand on the head of a pin' question.


We both know there are no gods.

That is not what I am debating with you. I suspect you are not paying attention again.

We are discussing one of these issues where this claimed god has an attribute that contradicts the scripture. This is not a knock down 'argument' to 'prove' there is no god. And you know this. If you do not want to discuss this god, why did you start interfering then? Why are you even a member on this site?

To be honest, I am not even convinced we have free will. That is besides the point as well. Since what we are talking about is why would an omniscient god create some people with the sole intention of sending them to hell. And if this god exists, is omniscient (as scripture claims), then this god is evil since we are not the ones that "decided from the word go' that some would end in his torture chamber. This does not address his existence, as you know.

Please try to pay attention and address my posts. It is also ok if you do not want to, just say so. But, it is frustrating that you keep on giving evidence that you are not paying attention. It is wasting my time with you, time I could have spend more productive elsewhere.

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

Post #572

Post by myth-one.com »

JohnA wrote:God's omniscience contradicts human free will.
Omniscience: the capacity to know everything there is to know.

How does that contradict free will?
JohnA wrote:Furthermore, this is the first time that someone could explain Gen 1:2 to me. But your explanation makes no sense. Your scripture verses does not agree with your interpretation. I will only pick one aspect and show you what I mean (remember, I am more interested in this God's omniscience contradicts human free will than your subjective opinion of scripture).

Genesis 1:26
If this god made Adam and Eve in his image, then they were omniscient. But Adam and Eve sinned, so they can not be omniscient. This means that (pic one):
This god is not omniscient = he did not know that Adam and Eve would sin.
This god is omniscient, but created them knowing in advance they would sin, making this god a little evil bugger for dooming all mankind from the go.
This god did not create these people in his image.
In His image does not mean identical. There were originally two differences between man and spiritual beings. Those two differences were longevity and knowledge of good and evil:
Genesis 3:22-23 wrote:And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: Therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.
Man gained knowledge of good and evil upon eating from the Tree of Knowledge. The one remaining difference is longevity -- which is body type. Man is a mortal flesh and blood bodied being with a maximum lifespan of 120 years, while spiritual beings are immortal spirits.

User avatar
Danmark
Site Supporter
Posts: 12697
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2012 2:58 am
Location: Seattle
Been thanked: 1 time

Post #573

Post by Danmark »

JohnA wrote:
We both know there are no gods.

That is not what I am debating with you. I suspect you are not paying attention again.

We are discussing one of these issues where this claimed god has an attribute that contradicts the scripture. This is not a knock down 'argument' to 'prove' there is no god. And you know this. If you do not want to discuss this god, why did you start interfering then? Why are you even a member on this site?

To be honest, I am not even convinced we have free will. That is besides the point as well. Since what we are talking about is why would an omniscient god create some people with the sole intention of sending them to hell. And if this god exists, is omniscient (as scripture claims), then this god is evil since we are not the ones that "decided from the word go' that some would end in his torture chamber. This does not address his existence, as you know.

Please try to pay attention and address my posts. It is also ok if you do not want to, just say so. But, it is frustrating that you keep on giving evidence that you are not paying attention. It is wasting my time with you, time I could have spend more productive elsewhere.
John, stripped of your claims I am not 'paying attention' and other personal remarks, your post has no new content. I've given you my position on free will; told you it is a very complicated issue that has been debated for Centuries. I've also told I don't believe in this omniscient God you're talking about, so I can't call him 'evil' since I don't think he exists.

No, there is no absolute free will. Man has at least the illusion of free will, but even that is limited by the cage he is in, just as the tiger in the zoo is limited by the size of his cage. This current argument is born from a belief by some that god exists as some perfect abstraction made flesh; an impossible, medieval scholastic logical extreme of an imaginary creature that somehow has infinite wisdom, infinite knowledge and power, yet grants us autonomy. I agree that is a contradiction in definitions and only exists in the minds of those who prefer constructs over reality.

If there is a god, he is not a god of theism; 'he' is not a being, 'he' is 'the very ground of being' to steal a phrase from Paul Tillich. But that 'very ground of being' cannot be personal, so 'he' cannot be a god of orthodox theism.

This perverted need to place this 'god' in a box and give him a personality, then ask questions like, 'Can God make a rock he cannot lift?' is boring and silly and most who ever thought of it at all got tired of the question when they were children.

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

Post #574

Post by myth-one.com »

Danmark wrote:I was about 13 when I asked our youth pastor why humans were created since Angels had free will
Humans were created because angels had free will.

Satan and some angels under his authority rebelled against God, proving that they had the free will to disobey God.

As a result of this rebellion man was made a little lower than the angels, with the possibility of becoming equal unto and replacing the rebellious angels in ruling over the earth.

This all occurred due to the angels having free will.

Without it, they would simply be robots following a script.

User avatar
Danmark
Site Supporter
Posts: 12697
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2012 2:58 am
Location: Seattle
Been thanked: 1 time

Post #575

Post by Danmark »

myth-one.com wrote:
Danmark wrote:I was about 13 when I asked our youth pastor why humans were created since Angels had free will
Humans were created because angels had free will.

Satan and some angels under his authority rebelled against God, proving that they had the free will to disobey God.

As a result of this rebellion man was made a little lower than the angels, with the possibility of becoming equal unto and replacing the rebellious angels in ruling over the earth.

This all occurred due to the angels having free will.

Without it, they would simply be robots following a script.
So, since angels were already autonomous creatures who had the will to choose to honor god or not, why did a new class of creatures have to be created? If God wanted creatures who could worship him through their own freely given love, creatures who could choose to obey or not, why did God have to create a whole new class who had the same nature?

I'm not asking for a lesson in scripture, but for an answer in logic. What did humans bring to the equation that the angels did not, since both had the freedom to choose to obey or disobey god?

Other than not having wings, what's the difference in terms of their moral and spiritual natures?

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

Post #576

Post by myth-one.com »

Danmark wrote:So, since angels were already autonomous creatures who had the will to choose to honor god or not, why did a new class of creatures have to be created? If God wanted creatures who could worship him through their own freely given love, creatures who could choose to obey or not, why did God have to create a whole new class who had the same nature?

I'm not asking for a lesson in scripture, but for an answer in logic. What did humans bring to the equation that the angels did not, since both had the freedom to choose to obey or disobey god?

Other than not having wings, what's the difference in terms of their moral and spiritual natures?
The angels were created immortal. God cannot possibly terminate them -- even if He wanted to. And one third of the angels rebelled!

Why risk creating more immortal angels and possible being stuck with more rebels for eternity? :-k

Thus God created a mortal being which can taste of life and then accept or reject everlasting life.

The original rebellious angels assigned to the earth were obviously not respecters of God at the time of their rebellion. These lower beings (mankind) must respect and believe in the Son of God as a prerequisite to becoming a spiritual being which lives forever.

They will know what they are getting into for eternity, and each man will choose everlasting life or everlasting death.

Everlasting life will not be forced upon them as a consequence beyond their control.

Consequently, they should be less inclined to rebel against God.

Its perfectly logical!!

User avatar
Danmark
Site Supporter
Posts: 12697
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2012 2:58 am
Location: Seattle
Been thanked: 1 time

Post #577

Post by Danmark »

myth-one.com wrote:
Danmark wrote:So, since angels were already autonomous creatures who had the will to choose to honor god or not, why did a new class of creatures have to be created? If God wanted creatures who could worship him through their own freely given love, creatures who could choose to obey or not, why did God have to create a whole new class who had the same nature?

I'm not asking for a lesson in scripture, but for an answer in logic. What did humans bring to the equation that the angels did not, since both had the freedom to choose to obey or disobey god?

Other than not having wings, what's the difference in terms of their moral and spiritual natures?
The angels were created immortal. God cannot possibly terminate them -- even if He wanted to. And one third of the angels rebelled!

Why risk creating more immortal angels and possible being stuck with more rebels for eternity? :-k

Thus God created a mortal being which can taste of life and then accept or reject everlasting life.

The original rebellious angels assigned to the earth were obviously not respecters of God at the time of their rebellion. These lower beings (mankind) must respect and believe in the Son of God as a prerequisite to becoming a spiritual being which lives forever.

They will know what they are getting into for eternity, and each man will choose everlasting life or everlasting death.

Everlasting life will not be forced upon them as a consequence beyond their control.

Consequently, they should be less inclined to rebel against God.

Its perfectly logical!!
Yes. Perfectly logical.
... only . . . according to you, this God who created these angels seems a bit of a . . . well . . . he doesn't seem very powerful, certainly not omnipotent. I mean he can't even get rid of these pesky angels he created. And he doesn't seem very smart either. First he creates these angel guys who he can't get rid of when they don't respect their creator. Then he makes the same mistake all over again with these humans he gives immortal souls to. Can't get rid of them either. When is this Guy going to learn?

Of course I suppose it is possible you are wrong and that God has power over both the Devil and man:

Revelation 20:10 and 15:

And the devil who had deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and sulfur, where the beast and the false prophet were, and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.
...and anyone whose name was not found written in the book of life was thrown into the lake of fire.


Seems to me that either this god is not all powerful, or he has the same power over both man and angels since he send send them all to the lake of fire where they will be 'tormented day and night forever and ever.'

"Its perfectly logical!!"

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

Post #578

Post by JohnA »

myth-one.com wrote:
JohnA wrote:God's omniscience contradicts human free will.
Omniscience: the capacity to know everything there is to know.

How does that contradict free will?
JohnA wrote:Furthermore, this is the first time that someone could explain Gen 1:2 to me. But your explanation makes no sense. Your scripture verses does not agree with your interpretation. I will only pick one aspect and show you what I mean (remember, I am more interested in this God's omniscience contradicts human free will than your subjective opinion of scripture).

Genesis 1:26
If this god made Adam and Eve in his image, then they were omniscient. But Adam and Eve sinned, so they can not be omniscient. This means that (pic one):
This god is not omniscient = he did not know that Adam and Eve would sin.
This god is omniscient, but created them knowing in advance they would sin, making this god a little evil bugger for dooming all mankind from the go.
This god did not create these people in his image.
In His image does not mean identical. There were originally two differences between man and spiritual beings. Those two differences were longevity and knowledge of good and evil:
Genesis 3:22-23 wrote:And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: Therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.
Man gained knowledge of good and evil upon eating from the Tree of Knowledge. The one remaining difference is longevity -- which is body type. Man is a mortal flesh and blood bodied being with a maximum lifespan of 120 years, while spiritual beings are immortal spirits.

Omniscience Contradicts free will - your words:
"Knowledge" of the future does ( hinder free will, therefore negates it)
The future is something unknown.
If even one being knows the future, then everything is known and fixed, and there is no free will.

My words:
I have to make a choice between 3 options: A, B, C.
I decide and pick pick B.
1) Are you saying that your god did not know if I would pick A, B, or C?
2) Or are you saying that your god KNEW in advance that I would pick B, therefore A and C was still options, but not options that I could pick - Option A and C existed, but I could never pick them since god already "decided and approved" me picking B due to his omniscience.

If you say Point 1, then it means your god is not all knowing, but I have free will.
If you say Point 2, then it means your god is all knowing, but I have no free will.
In His image does not mean identical.
And you know this how?
Surely if Adam and Eve did not know about good and evil then why would this god call it 'wrong' if they eat from a tree of knowledge? So, this god was unfair in calling it sin and dooming all man kind.
God lied to Adam and Eve as well. He said they will die immediately when they eat from the tree (Genesis 2:16-17), and Eve understood this (Genesis 3:4). They did not die, they just became like gods (knowledge of good and evil - Gen 3:22) as the serpent said in Gen 3:4). So, the only one that told the truth here was the serpent, Adam & Eve. God lied!
Man is a mortal flesh and blood bodied being with a maximum lifespan of 120 years
How do you know this?
So, this only applies to men. What about woman?
So, Eve (woman) do not know about good and evil?
The biblical claim that Noah lived to be 950 years old is wrong (gen9:29), Adam did 930 9gen 5:5). OK.

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

Post #579

Post by JohnA »

Danmark wrote:
JohnA wrote:
We both know there are no gods.

That is not what I am debating with you. I suspect you are not paying attention again.

We are discussing one of these issues where this claimed god has an attribute that contradicts the scripture. This is not a knock down 'argument' to 'prove' there is no god. And you know this. If you do not want to discuss this god, why did you start interfering then? Why are you even a member on this site?

To be honest, I am not even convinced we have free will. That is besides the point as well. Since what we are talking about is why would an omniscient god create some people with the sole intention of sending them to hell. And if this god exists, is omniscient (as scripture claims), then this god is evil since we are not the ones that "decided from the word go' that some would end in his torture chamber. This does not address his existence, as you know.

Please try to pay attention and address my posts. It is also ok if you do not want to, just say so. But, it is frustrating that you keep on giving evidence that you are not paying attention. It is wasting my time with you, time I could have spend more productive elsewhere.
John, stripped of your claims I am not 'paying attention' and other personal remarks, your post has no new content. I've given you my position on free will; told you it is a very complicated issue that has been debated for Centuries. I've also told I don't believe in this omniscient God you're talking about, so I can't call him 'evil' since I don't think he exists.

No, there is no absolute free will. Man has at least the illusion of free will, but even that is limited by the cage he is in, just as the tiger in the zoo is limited by the size of his cage. This current argument is born from a belief by some that god exists as some perfect abstraction made flesh; an impossible, medieval scholastic logical extreme of an imaginary creature that somehow has infinite wisdom, infinite knowledge and power, yet grants us autonomy. I agree that is a contradiction in definitions and only exists in the minds of those who prefer constructs over reality.

If there is a god, he is not a god of theism; 'he' is not a being, 'he' is 'the very ground of being' to steal a phrase from Paul Tillich. But that 'very ground of being' cannot be personal, so 'he' cannot be a god of orthodox theism.

This perverted need to place this 'god' in a box and give him a personality, then ask questions like, 'Can God make a rock he cannot lift?' is boring and silly and most who ever thought of it at all got tired of the question when they were children.
You refuse to engage in the free will discussion when I show you wrong (but you were happy to do it when you were trying to show me wrong). All you say is that "is a very complicated issue that has been debated for Centuries." I never asked you to call this god evil - that is your straw man.
But you are quick to say "No, there is no absolute free will" when science has no definitive answer. And then you go on and devote your writing about this god that you do not want to discuss in the rest of your post and subsequent posts with myth-one.com. How is that logical?
I agree that is a contradiction in definitions and only exists in the minds of those who prefer constructs over reality.
Maybe you should extrapolate that to include more or less than you.

And no, I am not having a go at you, even-though you are at me. I am merely trying to have a civil conversation with you. But clearly you get all defensive when your point is being shown contradictory. Have you ever considered admitting you are under a misapprehension?

Now, can you answer my question? Am not after a lecture or links, I am after your logic and your attention.

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 #580

Post by help3434 »

[Replying to post 576 by JohnA]

You are the one being defensive here.

Post Reply