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]

...

You are still arguing your god is incompetent because he has reduced omniscience (he does not know people future decisions, but he fills his head with all the pointless options - he plays dice).

Please prove HIS area of incompetence. Your opinion about whether something was handled incompetently or not will be ignored.

Please tell us how you know what HIS head is filled with and what those pointless options are.

If your god did not know any human future decisions, how did he KNOW that some people will end in hell? Why did he created hell?

GOD knows all future human decisions from the beginning of the world because the world is not a place for innocents to make free will decisions but the place where committed sinners live predestined lives to work out their repentance and redemption unto holiness.

HIS knowledge that some / one would end in hell started the instant the first person, probably Satan , chose to reject HIM as GOD and rejected HIS promise of election to heaven and salvation from sin as empty promises. This happened pre-earth, perhaps before the creation of the physical universe even.

When HE created reality, both spiritual and physical, there was creation and there was that which was not part of HIS creation, that which was outside of HIS creation, that which was nothing. HE did not have to create it, it was just there, outside of what HE did create, a great outer darkness of nothing. HE created every thing for HIS pleasure and HE takes no pleasure in the death (hell) of the wicked so hell was not created by HIM as part of HIS reality or creation, which puts it outside of HIS creation in that which is not HIS creation.

Did he place dice and thought that maybe some would not repent? Maybe, everyone would have repented (if his production line worked correctly and make humans in his correct image that is) and his hell would be pointless.

When we self created our eternal relationship with YHWH as our GOD or our eternal enemy, all of creation became separated into those whose sin could be forgiven since they accepted HIS promise of election to heaven and HIS promise of salvation from all their sin (therefore called HIS elect) from those who by rejecting HIS promises as empty promises from a false god could not be saved from their sin and so must suffer eternal death.

Some of the elect chose to become sinful in HIS sight necessitating the creation of the earth as their rehab centre to break them of their addiction to sin so they could fulfill their first choice to be holy in heaven.

So, no dice, and the lives of the sinful elect have nothing to do with the inevitable end of the judgement for the reprobate tares...two separate groups with two separate fulfillments of their own true free will decisions.

Also, are you arguing that your god is doing the people in hell a favor by burning for eternity because hell proves HIS love and mercy?

Of course I'm not and it is bad debate practice to try to misquote a person to himself.

Would you be happy in heaven KNOWING many innocent people (yes, your god created humans without knowledge of good and evil and then punished them for making a decision that was only wrong in your god's mind) are BURNING in hell?

There are NO innocent people in hell, only demons. No one will be punished for making a mistake. All decisions were made with a full understanding of all the consequences and reflected what each person hoped was the true reality, a life with GOD, a life with no god, or a life as your own god.

Everyone chose what they most wanted in their deepest desires and put their hope and their future happiness on that decision, some choosing to reject YHWH as their GOD, actively choosing to be HIS eternal enemy, knowing the result would be hell if HE was to prove HE really was GOD, alas.

peace, Ted

Previously you wrote:
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 385#608385

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

And now you wrote:

GOD knows all future human decisions from the beginning of the world

Does your god know human future decisions or not?

[myth-one.com]

Every human ever born will be given an equal chance.

How? In this life it's demonstrably false.

The Bible states that all mankind will be resurrected, believers and nonbelievers. But there will be an order to the resurrections:

For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. But every man in his own order: Christ the first fruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.

Christians will be resurrected at the Second Coming of Christ. Christians who are alive on the earth when Jesus returns will be born again as spirits and meet Him in the air:

Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.

So at this time after the Second Coming, all mankind who either died as Christians or were living as Christians at the Second Coming have been born again as spiritual beings. There are no longer any human Christians (dead or alive) at this point.

All of these born again spiritual bodied Christians will then enjoy the millennium Sabbath (1000 years) with Jesus:

Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.

The second resurrection for man occurs after the millennium:

But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. (Revelation 20:5)

There are only two groups. All who died believing in Jesus were resurrected during the first resurrection. Therefore, all remaining to be resurrected are nonbelievers. Since none of these have their names written in the book of life as heirs to eternal life, they will all be resurrected as mortal human beings:

And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them. And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works. And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire. (Revelation 20:11-15)

Notice that after the second resurrection and judgment, whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

But absolutely none of those resurrected at the second resurrection had their names written in the book of life when resurrected! Every single human, dead or alive, with their names written in the book of life were born again as spirits at the first resurrection!

Why are they checking the book again?

The only possible answer is that those who died as nonbelievers, including atheists, can hear the true gospel message and make an informed decision to accept or reject Jesus as their Savior after their first death! Otherwise there would be no reason to check the book again!

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

No human can survive being cast into the lake of fire for more than a second.

Most will probably be unconscious before ever reaching surface of the lake.

Their second death will occur very quickly.

Oh ok my bad a lake of fire is totally cool with me. Seriously would you toss your children in a lake of fire because they didn't love you enough? Secondly the highlighted red are all assumption with no evidence.

1. How hot is this lake of fire?
2. how will they become unconscious?
3. Do souls burn the same way as human bodies?
4. Do souls ever go unconscious?
5. How do we know a soul can be destroyed by fire?

while it is possible the second death occurs instantly and unconsciously, the opposite is equally possible. Fire doesn't kill you instantly it takes a lot longer than a second go visit a burn unit sometime.

My children have freedom of choice to make their own decisions. I'll be OK with whatever makes them happy.

The fire and brimstone will result in a quick death.

Forget the "immortal soul" farce. Man is only flesh and blood:

For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts; even one thing befalleth them: as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have all one breath; so that a man hath no preeminence above a beast: for all is vanity. All go unto one place; all are of the dust, and all turn to dust again. (Ecclesiastes 3:19-20)

During the time of the second resurrection, mankind will know the true gospel message of the scriptures -- they will know that nonbelievers simply face an everlasting second death and know nothing for all eternity.

They will know that upon accepting everlasting life, much more severe penalties become possible if they sin. The best example is Satan who will face eternal imprisonment without the possibility of parole! Total eternal boredom.

Those of mankind who are not born again into the Kingdom of God as everlasting spiritual beings will quickly lose consciousness and perish in the lake of fire -- make it two seconds if you wish.

Those humans with any doubt that they can be happy under God's leadership for all eternity can opt out of the living world.

This will be their only chance to opt out. Once everlasting is granted, it cannot be terminated.

[Aetixintro]

Not reading the whole 68 pages, I'd like to voice my support to the view that "God would not send a decent, ethically-committed Atheist to Hell".

However, as one is Christian or of any other decent Religion, my bet is still that the education from these improve the chances for the Religious people enormously compared to the fragile and necessarily lucky life-path for this Atheist "we send to Heaven", hypothetically.

Cheers!

PS: This Pope or the former has also voiced such a chance for an Atheist, a view that I share with the Catholic Church, resting, as stated above, on the fact of innocence under God's eye.

[JohnA]

Not reading the whole 68 pages, I'd like to voice my support to the view that "God would not send a decent, ethically-committed Atheist to Hell".

However, as one is Christian or of any other decent Religion, my bet is still that the education from these improve the chances for the Religious people enormously compared to the fragile and necessarily lucky life-path for this Atheist "we send to Heaven", hypothetically.

Cheers!

PS: This Pope or the former has also voiced such a chance for an Atheist, a view that I share with the Catholic Church, resting, as stated above, on the fact of innocence under God's eye.

I'd like to voice my support to the view that "God would not send a decent, ethically-committed Atheist to Hell".

And you know this how? Because the pope says so?

Also, question two.
Who will go to hell then, and why?

[EduChris]

...people who were never given a chance to know that source of life and love...

I don't think there are (or better, will be) any such people.

...Is it loving to have infinite punishment for finite crimes?...

There are varying ways to think of hell. It might be a place of annihilation. It might be a place where individuals choose to continue living a banal existence apart from God. Like many Christians, I really don't conceive of it as an inescapable place of eternal conscious torment. But to be honest, I don't worry about because I believe in the overriding love and mercy of God. The Judge of All the Earth will do what is right for each person.

...If one rejects the Source and Fount of All Life and Love...One doesn't reject this they were simply not provided sufficient evidence to accept it...

I have lived long enough to meet people who might be capable of such a decision, even if all the facts were known to them.

...it is incredibly difficult to trust an incredibly sadistic and contradictory being...

I wouldn't trust such a being any more than you would.

...this all knowing god knows what evidence is required for each individual to accept it. By hiding said evidence the creator is purposefully harming his creation...

I believe that God provides sufficient evidence to each person, although I don't think that God's primary interest is to funnel information and propositions into our brains. God is primarily interested in the condition of our heart: Do we love others as we should, and do we value other-regarding love above all else? If we do, then God will be pleased.

...For your god to be just and loving hell at a maximum could only last as long as their lifetime. A merciful god would reduce or eliminate hell. Even as you define it, the punishment is cruel and unjust

See item #2, above.

[Danmark]

...people who were never given a chance to know that source of life and love...

I don't think there are (or better, will be) any such people.

...Is it loving to have infinite punishment for finite crimes?...

There are varying ways to think of hell. It might be a place of annihilation. It might be a place where individuals choose to continue living a banal existence apart from God. Like many Christians, I really don't conceive of it as an inescapable place of eternal conscious torment. But to be honest, I don't worry about because I believe in the overriding love and mercy of God. The Judge of All the Earth will do what is right for each person.

...If one rejects the Source and Fount of All Life and Love...One doesn't reject this they were simply not provided sufficient evidence to accept it...

I have lived long enough to meet people who might be capable of such a decision, even if all the facts were known to them.

...it is incredibly difficult to trust an incredibly sadistic and contradictory being...

I wouldn't trust such a being any more than you would.

...this all knowing god knows what evidence is required for each individual to accept it. By hiding said evidence the creator is purposefully harming his creation...

I believe that God provides sufficient evidence to each person, although I don't think that God's primary interest is to funnel information and propositions into our brains. God is primarily interested in the condition of our heart: Do we love others as we should, and do we value other-regarding love above all else? If we do, then God will be pleased.

...For your god to be just and loving hell at a maximum could only last as long as their lifetime. A merciful god would reduce or eliminate hell. Even as you define it, the punishment is cruel and unjust

See item #2, above.

Chris, I think you fairly closely parallel my own thinking, when I was a Christian; to put it perhaps too simplistically, that 'hell' is separation from God.
I'm not at all sure I could justify this from a strict, literal interpretation of the Bible, but it was what I believed.

As a non theist however, and as one who does not take the Bible as the word of God, it is difficult for me to understand this entire conversation, except I suppose as a hypothetical.

Tho' there are certainly many references in the Bible that paint a picture of a jealous, angry, vindictive and all too human 'god,' when I hypothesize that there really is a god with a personality, I cannot for the life of me understand that he would punish people in any way for honestly not believing in him. MY image of God is of an entity frequently shaking his head in laughter and amazement at our many follies, yet appreciating that we do occasionally rise above our own selfishness. 'My' God smiles a lot at the human comedy. I wish he were not just hypothetical.

[myth-one.com]

Chris, I think you fairly closely parallel my own thinking, when I was a Christian; to put it perhaps too simplistically, that 'hell' is separation from God.

Jesus had to pay the wages of our sins to become our Savior.

But Jesus is now at the right hand of God:

So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God. (Mark 16:19)

If He is at God's right hand, then He is not separated from God -- and we have no Savior.

Conclusion: The wages of sin is not separation from God.

The wages of sin is death.

Separation from God and everything else is a consequence of death:

For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing... (Ecclesiastes 9:5)

[EduChris]

...I'm not at all sure I could justify this from a strict, literal interpretation of the Bible...

One of the dangers of "literal" interpretations is that we try to impose our modern-day expectations of what a text "should be," rather than try to figure out what a writer in an ancient culture might have been trying to communicate to his audience, and then apply that message to our own context.

...it is difficult for me to understand this entire conversation, except I suppose as a hypothetical...

I feel similarly when non-theists seem to go on and on about "evolution proving this or that." It's not that I have any particular issue with the mechanics and history of evolutionary processes on earth; rather, it's the naturalist's apparent insistence on focusing solely on the details while ignoring the larger picture.

...Tho' there are certainly many references in the Bible that paint a picture of a jealous, angry, vindictive and all too human 'god,'...

It does seem that the God of the Bible is passionately concerned about the affairs of people. The question is, what is the essential nature of God? Does it fall on the side of wrath, or on the side of love? Suffice to say that Christians are those who opt for the latter.

...I cannot for the life of me understand that he would punish people in any way for honestly not believing in him...

I don't think anyone is punished for not believing; rather, any punishment would be the consequence of failing to live the best life possible.

...MY image of God is of an entity frequently shaking his head in laughter and amazement at our many follies, yet appreciating that we do occasionally rise above our own selfishness. 'My' God smiles a lot at the human comedy...

Mine too! Though our persistent ability to wreak harm on the innocent remains a sober problem in need of a solution.

[Nickman]

...I'm not at all sure I could justify this from a strict, literal interpretation of the Bible...

One of the dangers of "literal" interpretations is that we try to impose our modern-day expectations of what a text "should be," rather than try to figure out what a writer in an ancient culture might have been trying to communicate to his audience, and then apply that message to our own context.

Literal interpretations actually aim at doing the opposite of what you say. They convey exactly what the person's words mean. It is up to the translator to put it in context.

[EduChris]

...Literal interpretations actually aim at doing the opposite of what you say. They convey exactly what the person's words mean. It is up to the translator to put it in context.

If Jonathan Swift's, A Modest Proposal were translated literally to a culture 2,000 years in the future which did not understand the genre of "satirical essay," that essay would be seriously misunderstood.

Some parts of the Bible are intended to be understood literally, to be sure, but many parts must be interpreted in a literary way rather than a literal way. Since most of us are not scholars of ancient languages and ancient cultures and literary interpretation, we are necessarily dependent on sound scholarship to inform our understandings of the Biblical message.