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.

[JohnA]

Im done debating this issue. If you wanna chock it up as a "win" be my guest. I have tried to show you that there is more than one way to look at this issue. I used to defend the position that you are defending now. I learned to change my conclusion based on new information. I have said over and over that your point is valid, but so is mine, because there are several ways to look at omniscience. Until you can acknowledge that I have no desire to debate this old horse any longer.

Keith is right, we are debating a concept that isn't even true.

This was never about winning.
For me the issue is quite clear. My position is the current thinking: it's a paradox, a contradiction. This has not been resolved. There are many justifications (you provided one) to try and rationalize the paradox. None of them are valid. They are all flawed in some ctitical aspect. The best one I know of is the one that I have mentioned: reduced omniscience; the deity chose to know or not.

All fun and games.


Am just not convinced Danmark's claims are rational or logical. He refuses to back up his claims or perhaps just forgets to. Maybe it's due to the complexity of this stuff or what constitudes evidence - he does not make it clear by not responding.

[myth-one.com]

This deity would see things as if they already happened, i.e. looking into the past.

So this deity would look into a past which has not yet occurred.

If they are omniscient then they know everything whether it be the past, present or future.

No, if they are omniscient they know everything -- period.

And this is different from what I said, how?

Future: something that will exist or happen in time to come.

Nothing exists in the "future" by definition.

The result of an unmade choice (A, B, or C) cannot be found in any future until it is made in someone's present tense. When that occurs it becomes part of history, and will be available to the future only when that future time becomes present time.

If there was no free will choice to be made, then God would not have asked us to choose:

I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live: (Deuteronomy 30:19)

Because God cannot lie:

In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began;

If God cannot lie, and He states that we have the freedom to choose, then we have the freedom to choose.

I didn't write this. John A did and you quoted it as if I said this.

My mistake, sorry. I'm

==========================================

Where did he find time to create anything when he is where there is not time?

There is nowhere where there is not the passage of time.

As stated before (and S Hawking has a long video on this if you want to see it), is you have no time then you can not action anything, you need time to go from state A to state B, so a timeless god could not have created the universe since he had to time to create it.

How can this timeless deity know what is happening a universe that has time - how do you explain the timeless to time link? Again, a timeless deity can not be the creator. Not can this timeless deity 'look back' into future, or the past in a universe with time.

Timeless as you use it here, simply means neverending, everlasting, infinite, etc.

And while man cannot understand infinity -- in time or distance; there are examples of God creating things over time in the scriptures.

[keithprosser3]

I can connect this to what I posted elsewhere... the idea that god would not reward or even actively punish a non-believer makes sense if religion and nation identity are considered identical. A non-believer is the religious equivalent of a foreigner (and hence considered an enemy) or a traitor in nationalistic terms.

[myth-one.com]

And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand, The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb: And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name" (Revelation 14.9-11 KJV bible)

The lake of fire was their torment. The smoke of their torment rises forever because the lake of fire lasts forever -- being the everlasting prison for Satan.

After humans die their first "death" in the Bible, they are said to sleep, slumber, or rest; because all will be resurrected to life again.

There will be "no rest day or night" for those cast into the lake of fire simply means that this second death is permanent!

That is, they do not sleep after the second death as they did after their first death.

They are dead -- never to live again.

"No rest day or night" is quite different from being dead, which is called rest, and also sleep. No rest day or night and torment are inconsistent with the idea that the lake of fire is eternal cessation of life.

You say "No rest day or night" is quite different from being dead.

You then say dead is also called rest and sleep.

If the words dead, rest, and sleep are interchangeable, then your statement logical becomes the following by substitution:

"No rest day or night" is quite different from rest, which is called rest, and also rest.

If "no rest day or night" is the same as death which is rest -- then they are not quite different as you claim.

This is what occurs when people do not distinguish between the two possible "deaths" which man befall mankind as defined in the scriptures.

Cessation of life is rest. The best rest anyone of us could ever ask for.

One wakes up from rest.

So the resting are not lifeless!!!!

Rest is not equavalent to true death!!!!

[Nickman]

Future: something that will exist or happen in time to come.

Nothing exists in the "future" by definition.

It does to the omniscient. Please study omniscience

: having infinite awareness, understanding, and insight

: possessed of universal or complete knowledge

The result of an unmade choice (A, B, or C) cannot be found in any future until it is made in someone's present tense. When that occurs it becomes part of history, and will be available to the future only when that future time becomes present time.

Unless you are omniscient. Please study omnoscience.

If there was no free will choice to be made, then God would not have asked us to choose:

I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live: (Deuteronomy 30:19)

Because God cannot lie:

In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began;

If God cannot lie, and He states that we have the freedom to choose, then we have the freedom to choose.

We have freedom to choose and God has freedom to know what we will choose. Your free will cannot hinder God's knowledge. Vice versa. Damn, why do I find myself in this debate again?

[myth-one.com]

Future: something that will exist or happen in time to come.

Nothing exists in the "future" by definition.

It does to the omniscient. Please study omniscience

: having infinite awareness, understanding, and insight

: possessed of universal or complete knowledge

Those definitions do not even mention or refer to the future.

An omniscient being (knowing everything) would tell you that the future is unknown by definition.

Damn, why do I find myself in this debate again?

Good question. I do not know why.

You do look somewhat "stressed" in your photo. (I miss the pretty Babe photo you once used.) Can I say "babe" in this venue? I mean it in a good way -- attractive, intelligent, good personality, probably makes her own clothes, etc. . .

Here's a [strike]proposal[/strike] . . . suggestion. Let's see if we can agree on the possible number of omniscient beings in existence. I said possible -- realizing that you probably believe the number is zero.

Here goes:

But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only. (Matthew 24:36)

One is not omniscient or all knowing if it can be proved that there is one thing that they do not know.

Therefore, God the Father is the only possible example of an omniscient being, because He, and only He knows the day and hour of the Second Coming.

Agreed?

[ttruscott]

...

You said before that your god only has foreknowledge of his works. Suggesting that some things he did not degree into reality because they have free will. That some things refer to humans (is the only thing I know of that has this free-will). So, you are saying your god did not create these humans, if I decipher your post (which is a challenge as your writing is not clear to me)

OK, I see where you went wrong...the bolded part is not what I contend at all. I'm glad it is an honest mistake because so often it is just harassment.

I claim that GOD created every person in HIS image with the ability to make true free will decisions but HE did NOT decree the RESULTS of those decisions. Since HE knew omnisciently everything HE decreed and all the possibilities of how that would work out, by not decreeing the result of anyones true free will decisions HE knew all the possibilities of such decision making as possibilities without knowing which one any person would choose.

And I am sorry for my abstract style of writing but it is a complex subject and I never know who has a grasp of the basic theological language and who does not.


Peace, Ted

[keithprosser3]

HE knew all the possibilities of such decision making as possibilities without knowing which one any person would choose.

[micatala]

[Replying to post 602 by ttruscott]

Interesting. So, you reckon that this god did not create humans. Lol. All reverence in the bible about him creating Adam and Eve are wrong then. Well you have to accept that to explain human free will by an all knowing god.

I cannot answer -this supposed statement of what I believe is so far from all reality that I am stymied as to a reply.

I see a lol but I feel something deeper...

Peace, Ted

I'm with you there Ted. The 'English' construction of the post alone is enough to confuse. As is typical with his posts, it's hard to tell where the fractured language leaves off and the faulty logic begins.

Moderator Warning


This post serves no other function than to disparage another member. If you think a members verbiage is unclear, ask for clarification. If you wish to point to a particular passage that is problematic, address the substance without the negative commentary.


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.

[JohnA]

...

You said before that your god only has foreknowledge of his works. Suggesting that some things he did not degree into reality because they have free will. That some things refer to humans (is the only thing I know of that has this free-will). So, you are saying your god did not create these humans, if I decipher your post (which is a challenge as your writing is not clear to me)

OK, I see where you went wrong...the bolded part is not what I contend at all. I'm glad it is an honest mistake because so often it is just harassment.

I claim that GOD created every person in HIS image with the ability to make true free will decisions but HE did NOT decree the RESULTS of those decisions. Since HE knew omnisciently everything HE decreed and all the possibilities of how that would work out, by not decreeing the result of anyones true free will decisions HE knew all the possibilities of such decision making as possibilities without knowing which one any person would choose.

And I am sorry for my abstract style of writing but it is a complex subject and I never know who has a grasp of the basic theological language and who does not.


Peace, Ted

Then your god does not have full omniscience, but reduced omniscience. This is indeed one way to get around this free-will / omniscience issue, but all you are doing is stripping your god's omniscience attribute, reducing it.
That also means that you can not claim any prophecies as these clearly rely on him KNOWING exactly what humans results of their decisions would be in order for the prophecy fulfillment to take place.
The only way around this, for you, is to say:
HE did NOT decree the RESULTS of those decisions, except for prophecies.

HE knew all the possibilities of such decision making as possibilities without knowing which one any person would choose.

Have your cake and eat it? I do not understand what you wrote above: It's contradictory.

The simple unknown is a better explanation than the complex unknown.