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.

[shnarkle]

[Replying to Danmark]

So you agree the text says God says he will do these things and he does them.
shnarkle: Yes.
-----------------------
And you must agree that what the text say will and has happened to entire populations would be evil done by anyone other than God,

shnarkle: Not necessarily.
---------------------------
or by God's command.
shnarkle: No, I definitely disagree with that.
----------------------------

Is it your claim that just because God is the agent causing this death and destruction and misery, that these acts are not evil?

shnarkle: No, putting wicked degenerates out of their misery is not evil. Wicked degenerates tend to put themselves out of their misery most of the time. There isn't much misery to a cataclysmic disaster when everyone is destroyed. The misery is all taking place prior to God destroying them. When these degenerates are all going about inflicting pain and suffering on each other is when the misery is taking place. When it ends, it's over. God puts an end to the misery, that's a good thing, not evil.

[shnarkle]

------------------------------------
This tribal God seems to proudly boast about his evil miracles as he wipes out entire nations and populations regardless of whether the sins of the individuals of 'the other' merit such punishment.

shnarkle: Care to document this assertion?
-----------------------------
This God of catastrophes is clearly a 'god' made up by a specific culture or tribe, to justify its own selfish desires, particularly when it comes to land grabs and rebellion.

shnarkle: In some instances this is the case, but this "made up" god always lets them down, and results in Israel (or whoever God is working on) to repent and come back to Him.

The Old Testament of the Christian Bible documents it rather well.

shnarkle: But you seem incapable of doing the same, why?
---------------------------
God is clearly saying he will do these evil things as punishment.

shnarekle: Where does the bible refer to these things God does as "evil"?
--------------------------
He does not say that disobeying Him will lead naturally to problems.

shnarkle: He says that obedience leads to blessings, while disobedience leads to curses.
----------------------------
This God is clearly intervening.

shnarkle: Yes, he tells them directly that to obey leads to blessings and disobedience leads to curses. If one were to look at God's commandments honestly one should be able to see that they are just common sense. He says to wash after coming in contact with blood or a corpse. He says to wash after relieving oneself. He says to save your money, invest wisely, be honest in business dealings, keep your house safe from accidents, stay away from loose women, don't drink too much, etc.
------------------------------------

By your logic about the God of Israel rewarding his people and the other 'gods' "letting them down," One could reason that those who live long, healthy, prosperous lives are doing so because they are blessed by God;

shnarkle: Not just blessed by God, but blessed by God for believing what He says, and subsequently obeying what He has instructed them to do for their own good.
-------------------------------
while the poor and the sick are in their condition because they did not obey God.

shnarkle: Yes, there are exceptions(e.g. to show God's glory), but a lot of the poor and sick are poor and sick because they have no earthly idea of what it means to have any common sense. They don't believe God when He says to stay away from garbage feeders/scavengers. They don't believe God when He says to refrain from gluttony or drunkeness, and they end up with diabetes or a bad liver.
---------------------------------

Yet Jesus preached exactly the opposite.

shnarkle: No, not at all. Jesus preached that it isn't enough to do everything God has commanded. An atheist or Pharisee can do all that God has commanded and be prosperous and healthy, but still destined to die and return to dust without any chance of eternal life. Jesus preached that one must have a relationship with God first and foremost, and that must be what motivates us to obedience. The Pharisees were endeavoring to keep the commandments in order to justify themselves. They went about establishing their own righteousness, and Jesus (and Paul)pointed out to them that their righteousness would amount to nothing in the end. Jesus wasn't saying anything to reject the law. He was pointing out that the purpose of the law isn't to justify oneself or establish one's own righteousness.

[ttruscott]

[quote="shnarkle"]

...
You see, knee jerk responses seldom pay out the big win...I contend that we only had our true free will choices in sheol,

shnarkle Sheol is the grave so I fail to see how anyone can make a free will choice when they are dead.


.. Sheol does not equate to the grave, a long held mistake. If you don't believe me, look it up. Here's some help... http://www.middletownbiblechurch.org/doctrine/hades.htm

Peace, Ted

[shnarkle]

[Replying to ttruscott]

Sheol does not equate to the grave, a long held mistake. If you don't believe me, look it up.

Peace, Ted

shnarkle: It most certainly means the grave. That's the primary usage throughout the Old Testament. I looked it up, now it's your turn.

[Danmark]

[Replying to Danmark]

So you agree the text says God says he will do these things and he does them.
shnarkle: Yes.
-----------------------
And you must agree that what the text say will and has happened to entire populations would be evil done by anyone other than God,

shnarkle: Not necessarily.
---------------------------
or by God's command.
shnarkle: No, I definitely disagree with that.
----------------------------

Is it your claim that just because God is the agent causing this death and destruction and misery, that these acts are not evil?

shnarkle: No, putting wicked degenerates out of their misery is not evil. Wicked degenerates tend to put themselves out of their misery most of the time. There isn't much misery to a cataclysmic disaster when everyone is destroyed. The misery is all taking place prior to God destroying them. When these degenerates are all going about inflicting pain and suffering on each other is when the misery is taking place. When it ends, it's over. God puts an end to the misery, that's a good thing, not evil.

[First, a style point. You choose to not use BBCode for quoting. This can lead be confusing as to who said what and it certainly makes reading and responding to you posts more work for your readers. If you don't know how to use it, you can send a private message to someone who's been here a few years, or to a moderator. I'm not expert in it myself]

"putting wicked degenerates out of their misery" is certainly evil from the point of view of the person being killed. Those who you call 'wicked degenerates' may not deserve that title. This is why I point out the 'tribal god' issue. When entire cities are destroyed by your god, the destruction includes infants and children who are not yet an an age where they can make moral judgments. For example, as a matter of law children of a certain age may not be held responsible for criminal acts.

Do you have a factual basis, perhaps a citation to some authority or learned text for your claim that 'Wicked degenerates tend to put themselves out of their misery most of the time.'?

I also have to correct on your claim, "There isn't much misery to a cataclysmic disaster when everyone is destroyed." The misery may be short lived when the fire races thru town, but that is a matter of length of duration of the misery. Your claim is absurd on it's face.

If this is the kind of logic one must resort to, to defend the acts of the God you describe, I'm not to share a belief system that can distort one's views so hideously.

[Danmark]

------------------------------------
This tribal God seems to proudly boast about his evil miracles as he wipes out entire nations and populations regardless of whether the sins of the individuals of 'the other' merit such punishment.

shnarkle: Care to document this assertion?
-----------------------------
This God of catastrophes is clearly a 'god' made up by a specific culture or tribe, to justify its own selfish desires, particularly when it comes to land grabs and rebellion.

shnarkle: In some instances this is the case, but this "made up" god always lets them down, and results in Israel (or whoever God is working on) to repent and come back to Him.

The Old Testament of the Christian Bible documents it rather well.

shnarkle: But you seem incapable of doing the same, why?
---------------------------
God is clearly saying he will do these evil things as punishment.

shnarekle: Where does the bible refer to these things God does as "evil"?
--------------------------
He does not say that disobeying Him will lead naturally to problems.

shnarkle: He says that obedience leads to blessings, while disobedience leads to curses.
----------------------------
This God is clearly intervening.

shnarkle: Yes, he tells them directly that to obey leads to blessings and disobedience leads to curses. If one were to look at God's commandments honestly one should be able to see that they are just common sense. He says to wash after coming in contact with blood or a corpse. He says to wash after relieving oneself. He says to save your money, invest wisely, be honest in business dealings, keep your house safe from accidents, stay away from loose women, don't drink too much, etc.
------------------------------------

By your logic about the God of Israel rewarding his people and the other 'gods' "letting them down," One could reason that those who live long, healthy, prosperous lives are doing so because they are blessed by God;

shnarkle: Not just blessed by God, but blessed by God for believing what He says, and subsequently obeying what He has instructed them to do for their own good.
-------------------------------
while the poor and the sick are in their condition because they did not obey God.

shnarkle: Yes, there are exceptions(e.g. to show God's glory), but a lot of the poor and sick are poor and sick because they have no earthly idea of what it means to have any common sense. They don't believe God when He says to stay away from garbage feeders/scavengers. They don't believe God when He says to refrain from gluttony or drunkeness, and they end up with diabetes or a bad liver.
---------------------------------

Yet Jesus preached exactly the opposite.

shnarkle: No, not at all. Jesus preached that it isn't enough to do everything God has commanded. An atheist or Pharisee can do all that God has commanded and be prosperous and healthy, but still destined to die and return to dust without any chance of eternal life. Jesus preached that one must have a relationship with God first and foremost, and that must be what motivates us to obedience. The Pharisees were endeavoring to keep the commandments in order to justify themselves. They went about establishing their own righteousness, and Jesus (and Paul)pointed out to them that their righteousness would amount to nothing in the end. Jesus wasn't saying anything to reject the law. He was pointing out that the purpose of the law isn't to justify oneself or establish one's own righteousness.

[Again, this odd way of posting makes it more difficult than it should be to accurately respond. You've included in the blue 'quotation paragraph' things you did not say without attribution]

You wrote :
"a lot of the poor and sick are poor and sick because they have no earthly idea of what it means to have any common sense." In other words you are saying that this group of poor and sick people are in their conditions because they don't believe in the 'right' god. So when you see a person with cancer, you consider the cause may be because they disobeyed God. According to you, Christians are healthier because they don't eat pork, or don't consecrate the Sabbath to God, or because they wear clothing made with blended fabric and in general that sin is the cause of suffering.

This line of thinking appears to be most unChristlike:

Now as Jesus passed by, He saw a man who was blind from birth. And His disciples asked Him, saying, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?� Jesus answered, “Neither this man nor his parents sinned, but that the works of God should be revealed in him.
John 9:1-3

You seem to be attributing sanitary practices and other common sense practices to God. I find this a very odd and overly simplistic position to take.

The world has benefited greatly from the work of atheists:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_at ... technology
There you will find a list of about 200 famous scientists who were or are atheists.

[Danmark]

shnarkle: It most certainly means the grave. That's the primary usage throughout the Old Testament. I looked it up, now it's your turn.

By use of the words 'primary usage' you may now be closer to what Ted said, that it does not equate to the grave.

Again your position is overly simplistic. The word is not limited to the simple meaning of a grave, or a hole or pit; but it is a word that has a meaning that changes over time and group.

She'ol (/ˈʃi�oʊl/ shee-ohl or /ˈʃi�əl/ shee-əl; Hebrew שְ��וֹל Šʾôl), translated as "grave", "pit", or "abode of the dead", is the Old Testament/Hebrew Bible's underworld, a place of darkness to which all the dead go, both the righteous and the unrighteous, regardless of the moral choices made in life, a place of stillness and darkness cut off from God.[1]
The inhabitants of Sheol were the "shades" (rephaim), entities without personality or strength.[2] Under some circumstances they could be contacted by the living, as the Witch of Endor contacts the shade of Samuel for Saul, but such practices are forbidden (Deuteronomy 18:10).[3] While the Old Testament writings describe Sheol as the permanent place of the dead, in the Second Temple period (roughly 500 BCE-70 CE) a more diverse set of ideas developed: in some texts, Sheol is the home of both the righteous and the wicked, separated into respective compartments; in others, it was a place of punishment, meant for the wicked dead alone.[4] When the Hebrew scriptures were translated into Greek in ancient Alexandria around 200 BC the word "Hades" (the Greek underworld) was substituted for Sheol, and this is reflected in the New Testament where Hades is both the underworld of the dead and the personification of the evil it represents.[5]
_ Wikipedia

[shnarkle]

[Replying to Danmark]

Dan:"putting wicked degenerates out of their misery" is certainly evil from the point of view of the person being killed.

shnarkle: As I pointed out before, those who are wicked degenerates tend to off themselves in most cases. It's a lifestyle that leads to a premature death.
---------------------------
Dan: Those who you call 'wicked degenerates' may not deserve that title.

shnarkle: I wasn't referring to anyone in particular. I am merely stating the case of a given degenerate.
-----------------------------
Dan:This is why I point out the 'tribal god' issue. When entire cities are destroyed by your god, the destruction includes infants and children who are not yet an an age where they can make moral judgments. For example, as a matter of law children of a certain age may not be held responsible for criminal acts.

shnarkle:Perhaps you could give an example from the bible to support your claim.
-------------------------------

Do you have a factual basis, perhaps a citation to some authority or learned text for your claim that 'Wicked degenerates tend to put themselves out of their misery most of the time.'?

shnarkle: There are countless citations to be found in the bible, but I'm guessing that you don't place much importance in that source. How about the numerous examples we have from history? I've been reading some biographies of Sartre, Bertold Brecht, Ibsen, Hemmingway, and others who lied, cheated, stole, committed adultery, and regularly engaged the services of prostitutes only to end up miserable. Perhaps the Centers for disease Control might help as a resource. Their website alone has plenty of information to caution those who think living a life of degeneracy will lead to a long and happy life. Personally, of all the people I've known who have lived a productive, fulfilling life (not to be confused with a life of degeneracy), not one of them has so much as attempted to commit suicide. That doesn't seem to be the case with degenerates so when God decides to help them along, it seems more like an act of mercy than anything evil.
-------------------------

Dan: I also have to correct on your claim, "There isn't much misery to a cataclysmic disaster when everyone is destroyed." The misery may be short lived when the fire races thru town, but that is a matter of length of duration of the misery. Your claim is absurd on it's face.

shnarkle: That isn't a correction. It's an assertion, and not only does it not contradict what I stated, but agrees with it. I pointed out that there isn't much misery, and you assented to that claim by adding, "the misery may be short lived...but that is a matter of length of duration of the misery." Duh, that's what I said. If my claim is absurd, then to agree with it is just as absurd. The point which you fail to grasp is that when people are abusing others who may or may not even want to be abused, the cause is a degenerate infirmity, and only results in more misery. If the perpetrators of this evil were prevented from carrying out their evil deeds, THEN they would be miserable. Ending their lives, doesn't cause misery. If they are fleeing from burning hailstones, they aren't really thinking about how much they'd rather be abusing someone else, but their sense of self preservation doesn't in any way result in misery. Perhaps fear, excitement, or terror, but not misery.
---------------------------

Dan: If this is the kind of logic one must resort to, to defend the acts of the God you describe,

shnarkle: You're the one making the accusations without giving examples. I'm not defending any particular acts because you have yet to give any examples.
-----------------------------
I'm not to share a belief system that can distort one's views so hideously.

shnarkle: I seriously doubt that. In fact I would venture to guess that you would defend this logic in a number of cases, e.g. the right of a woman to choose to have an abortion.

[shnarkle]

shnarkle: It most certainly means the grave. That's the primary usage throughout the Old Testament. I looked it up, now it's your turn.

By use of the words 'primary usage' you may now be closer to what Ted said, that it does not equate to the grave.

Again your position is overly simplistic. The word is not limited to the simple meaning of a grave, or a hole or pit;

shnarkle: Ah, so you now admit it does in fact mean "the grave".
--------------------------
but it is a word that has a meaning that changes over time and group.

shnarkle: That's debatable. Regardless, the word used by the "group" who wrote the Hebrew scriptures when they wrote it has the primary meaning of "the grave".
--------------------------

She'ol (/ˈʃi�oʊl/ shee-ohl or /ˈʃi�əl/ shee-əl; Hebrew שְ��וֹל Šʾôl), translated as "grave", "pit", or "abode of the dead", is the Old Testament/Hebrew Bible's underworld, a place of darkness to which all the dead go, both the righteous and the unrighteous, regardless of the moral choices made in life, a place of stillness and darkness cut off from God.[1]

shnarkle: Yes, "the grave".
----------------------------
The inhabitants of Sheol were the "shades" (rephaim),

shnarkle: No, not at all. You an whoever you got this nonsense from is conflating sheol with "tartarus" (Gr. "tartaroo").
------------------------
entities without personality or strength.

shnarkle: Again you are now conflating people who have died and gone to sheol 'the grave" with those fallen angels, as well as their hybrid offspring; who are chained in tartarus.
--------------------------
[2] Under some circumstances they could be contacted by the living, as the Witch of Endor contacts the shade of Samuel for Saul, but such practices are forbidden (Deuteronomy 18:10).[3]

shnarkle: Again this is debatable. What was forbidden was to contact "familiar spirits" which aren't the spirits of departed people, but demonic spirits. Human beings have a spirit, but are nowhere in the bible described as spirits themselves.
--------------------------
While the Old Testament writings describe Sheol as the permanent place of the dead, in the Second Temple period (roughly 500 BCE-70 CE) a more diverse set of ideas developed: in some texts, Sheol is the home of both the righteous and the wicked, separated into respective compartments; in others, it was a place of punishment, meant for the wicked dead alone.[4] When the Hebrew scriptures were translated into Greek in ancient Alexandria around 200 BC the word "Hades" (the Greek underworld) was substituted for Sheol,

shnarkle: Yes, and I would contend that it the author gave the Gr. "Hades" the same definition as the Hebrew "sheol". In other words the author wasn't redefining what the psalmist originally wrote. Therefore, whatever other meanings the heathen had for "Hades" are irrelevant.

[shnarkle]

------------------------------------
This tribal God seems to proudly boast about his evil miracles as he wipes out entire nations and populations regardless of whether the sins of the individuals of 'the other' merit such punishment.

shnarkle: Care to document this assertion?
-----------------------------
This God of catastrophes is clearly a 'god' made up by a specific culture or tribe, to justify its own selfish desires, particularly when it comes to land grabs and rebellion.

shnarkle: In some instances this is the case, but this "made up" god always lets them down, and results in Israel (or whoever God is working on) to repent and come back to Him.

The Old Testament of the Christian Bible documents it rather well.

shnarkle: But you seem incapable of doing the same, why?
---------------------------
God is clearly saying he will do these evil things as punishment.

shnarekle: Where does the bible refer to these things God does as "evil"?
--------------------------
He does not say that disobeying Him will lead naturally to problems.

shnarkle: He says that obedience leads to blessings, while disobedience leads to curses.
----------------------------
This God is clearly intervening.

shnarkle: Yes, he tells them directly that to obey leads to blessings and disobedience leads to curses. If one were to look at God's commandments honestly one should be able to see that they are just common sense. He says to wash after coming in contact with blood or a corpse. He says to wash after relieving oneself. He says to save your money, invest wisely, be honest in business dealings, keep your house safe from accidents, stay away from loose women, don't drink too much, etc.
------------------------------------

By your logic about the God of Israel rewarding his people and the other 'gods' "letting them down," One could reason that those who live long, healthy, prosperous lives are doing so because they are blessed by God;

shnarkle: Not just blessed by God, but blessed by God for believing what He says, and subsequently obeying what He has instructed them to do for their own good.
-------------------------------
while the poor and the sick are in their condition because they did not obey God.

shnarkle: Yes, there are exceptions(e.g. to show God's glory), but a lot of the poor and sick are poor and sick because they have no earthly idea of what it means to have any common sense. They don't believe God when He says to stay away from garbage feeders/scavengers. They don't believe God when He says to refrain from gluttony or drunkeness, and they end up with diabetes or a bad liver.
---------------------------------

Yet Jesus preached exactly the opposite.

shnarkle: No, not at all. Jesus preached that it isn't enough to do everything God has commanded. An atheist or Pharisee can do all that God has commanded and be prosperous and healthy, but still destined to die and return to dust without any chance of eternal life. Jesus preached that one must have a relationship with God first and foremost, and that must be what motivates us to obedience. The Pharisees were endeavoring to keep the commandments in order to justify themselves. They went about establishing their own righteousness, and Jesus (and Paul)pointed out to them that their righteousness would amount to nothing in the end. Jesus wasn't saying anything to reject the law. He was pointing out that the purpose of the law isn't to justify oneself or establish one's own righteousness.

"a lot of the poor and sick are poor and sick because they have no earthly idea of what it means to have any common sense." In other words you are saying that this group of poor and sick people are in their conditions because they don't believe in the 'right' god.

shnarkle: No, they don't believe (or are completely ignorant of) the instructions God (not to be confused with the numerous "gods" that abound today) supplied them with for their benefit.
-------------------------
So when you see a person with cancer, you consider the cause may be because they disobeyed God.

shnarkle: Ultimately yes. There is plenty of scientific evidence to support the fact that animal fat causes cancer. God says to eat the flesh of clean animals, but to burn the fat on the alter. Nowadays, unless you are eating grass fed range cattle, you're going to be eating fat which is marbled throughout the meat.
------------------------------
According to you, Christians are healthier because they don't eat pork,

shnarkle: Yes, that would be healthier than eating it. Again, there is plenty of evidence to support this fact.
----------------------------
or don't consecrate the Sabbath to God,

shnarkle: I don't consider lawbreakers to be Christian; this would be a topic for another thread.
------------------------------
or because they wear clothing made with blended fabric

shnarkle: Again, it would be foolish to do what God has expressly pointed out is unhealthy.
------------------------
and in general that sin is the cause of suffering.

shnarkle: Most definitely.
-------------------

This line of thinking appears to be most unChristlike:

Now as Jesus passed by, He saw a man who was blind from birth. And His disciples asked Him, saying, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?� Jesus answered, “Neither this man nor his parents sinned, but that the works of God should be revealed in him.
John 9:1-3

shnarkle: This passage isn't really applicable. He's pointing out why this man was blind, e.g. "that the works of God should be revealed in him.". This, in no way; denies that sin causes blindness, birth defects, sickness and death. One could look at the genocides of Mao or Polpot and make the same point. Who sinned, those who were killed in those genocides or their parents? Neither, but it shows the result of evil tyranny.
-----------------

You seem to be attributing sanitary practices and other common sense practices to God. I find this a very odd and overly simplistic position to take.

shnarkle: Why? I'm pulling it straight from the commandments of God Himself.
-------------------------------

The world has benefited greatly from the work of atheists:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_at ... technology
There you will find a list of about 200 famous scientists who were or are atheists.

shnarkle: True!, but so what? Those benefits aren't because they were atheists, but more likely despite that fact. More people have been murdered by atheists than any other segment of society in world history.