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.

User avatar
Benoni
Banned
Banned
Posts: 2301
Joined: Sun May 16, 2010 8:31 am
Location: Wilson NY (Niagara County)

AGELY

Post #791

Post by Benoni »

The other issue is the point ultimate salvation for all people. I have debated a multiple of believers over the years and most of them refuse to even look a post that would believe such an extreme belief and cannot see how it can be based on sound Biblical evidence. I am declaring NOW the whole concept of eternal hell is based on a few key words and verse which can be easily refuted if the believer would just open their spiritual eyes.

Then you have some who when verses I presented declaring, these truth either they refuse to address the verse, or fight it with everything they have because there is NOTHING more important than defending ones religious turf. But in the end they are proven wrong because God’s truth is always out there if you are really seeking it.
I myself leave no stone overturned when it comes to my quest for truth because I have learned over the years God hides his deep truth and it is my mission as an overcomer to have those truth revealed or unveiled to me.

Here is an interesting start point: The real problem with words like eternal everlasting and for ever and ever is the Babylonian religious system that refuse to look outside of their man made religious box. The seminaries keep puppeting the same old doctrines of damnations generation after generation. Occasionally you will find a Bible scholar willing to agree with the following. A careful study of the Greek word “aionios� (translated as “eternal,� “everlasting,� and “forever and ever� in our English translations) shows that it comes from the Greek noun “aion� which always means “an indeterminate period of time.�

It is a most unfortunate thing that the translators of old chose to translate “aionios� from the Latin language rather than the Greek from which the word is derived. God’s punishment will not last forever as is commonly taught, but will only last for the ages and only UNTIL God’s purpose for it is complete.


Eternal, eternity, etc. is not actually found in Scripture though in some aspects applied through inference of propositions. The problem is that the Greek words which were translated to "eternal" actually do not translate properly in English because there is no word in English which translates it properly. In this case, the word is "AIONIOS" and it is a descriptive adjective which just means "of, or in, or belonging to, or coming from, or resmbling, or befitting the AION.

AION is a noun meaning, "A period of time, or perpetuity of time, or definitive age, or unbroken age." It simply means an age with unknown measure which can be in definitive or definitive.

So literally the word "AIONIOS" being translated as "Eternal" would more accurately be defined as "agely"; however since "agely" is not a real word, that leaves the English language without a literal translation for the word "AIONIOS".

So anytime you saw Jesus say "Eternal" this and "Eternal" that, he didn't say "perpetually of time" but rather an indeterminate duration that is neither perpetual nor definitive.

User avatar
Clownboat
Savant
Posts: 10012
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 3:42 pm
Has thanked: 1216 times
Been thanked: 1614 times

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

Post #792

Post by Clownboat »

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.
And here we have the type of thinking that helps some people to strap bombs on their chest to blow up innocent people. They are suffering after all anyway. :roll:

It is evil IMO, and I can no longer support this kind of thinking.

Flail: Only when Muslims and Christians stop teaching their children that god loves only them, and so despises the others so as to sentence them to eternal hell, will we have a chance to stop the violence and bloodshed. Please leave your children out of your superstitions.
You can give a man a fish and he will be fed for a day, or you can teach a man to pray for fish and he will starve to death.

I blame man for codifying those rules into a book which allowed superstitious people to perpetuate a barbaric practice. Rules that must be followed or face an invisible beings wrath. - KenRU

It is sad that in an age of freedom some people are enslaved by the nomads of old. - Marco

If you are unable to demonstrate that what you believe is true and you absolve yourself of the burden of proof, then what is the purpose of your arguments? - brunumb

User avatar
Clownboat
Savant
Posts: 10012
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 3:42 pm
Has thanked: 1216 times
Been thanked: 1614 times

Post #793

Post by Clownboat »

olavisjo wrote: .
Danmark wrote: Not only is this a dangerous belief system, but from the point of view of those who don't except such nonsense, it is utterly vile, ghastly and disgusting because of what it encourages and because of how it excuses murder.
The other side is even worse, for those who 'except' the idea that death is just sleep without dreams, killing becomes a way of putting people out of their misery, a place where they will all go sooner or later anyway. And no God to punish, eternally, the murderers.
That does not seem to be the case. For example, in this thread, we had snarkle say this:
"No, putting wicked degenerates out of their misery is not evil."

An atheist can at least appreciate the time another person has on this planet. Contrast that with, "putting wicked degenerates out of their misery is not evil."
You can give a man a fish and he will be fed for a day, or you can teach a man to pray for fish and he will starve to death.

I blame man for codifying those rules into a book which allowed superstitious people to perpetuate a barbaric practice. Rules that must be followed or face an invisible beings wrath. - KenRU

It is sad that in an age of freedom some people are enslaved by the nomads of old. - Marco

If you are unable to demonstrate that what you believe is true and you absolve yourself of the burden of proof, then what is the purpose of your arguments? - brunumb

User avatar
ttruscott
Site Supporter
Posts: 11064
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 5:09 pm
Location: West Coast of Canada
Been thanked: 3 times

Post #794

Post by ttruscott »

Danmark wrote:
...

The eternal hell doctrine suggests an evil far beyond anything man could do. It is an abomination. I do not have the words at my command to describe how utterly despicable this concept is.

...
Hell is based upon the self creation of demons and devils by their true free will decisions. It is not a punishment for unbelief as we know it here. Many approach these things using earthly experience as definitions but that is not what happened.

The evil they chose is unchangeable because no evil person can change himself to be good and the worst part of their choice to be evil in HIS sight was to reject HIS offer of salvation for sin as worthless promises from a false god.

Therefore you have spirits created as eternal beings who have chosen to be absolutely evil, that is, with no redeeming features, unable to ever fulfill the reason for their creation, the eternal scourge of the universe.

IF not hell, what would you suggest to do with folk like this? Remember, you are calling me and Christian theology out to answer this utterly despicable concept so the concept and supporting theology is also a given as an integral part of the concept.

I do not expect ordinary people to allow murderers and reapers to run free and prey upon others so I do have a hard time with the contention that Christians should theoretically allow demons and devils to prey upon them for eternity.

Peace, Ted
PCE Theology as I see it...

We had an existence with a free will in Sheol before the creation of the physical universe. Here we chose to be able to become holy or to be eternally evil in YHWH's sight. Then the physical universe was created and all sinners were sent to earth.

This theology debunks the need to base Christianity upon the blasphemy of creating us in Adam's sin.

Elijah John
Savant
Posts: 12236
Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2013 8:23 pm
Location: New England
Has thanked: 11 times
Been thanked: 16 times

Post #795

Post by Elijah John »

"The eternal hell doctrine suggests an evil far beyond anything man could do. It is an abomination. I do not have the words at my command to describe how utterly despicable this concept is.

For those religionists who believe in such a thing, this doctrine alone should be convincing proof that their God of Love does not exist. 'The very idea of hell is the great evil of this absurd religion. It is the darkness at the heart of Christianity.'"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OK, I think I butchered the quote process here, but I believe the above quote is from Danmark post 782 and I just want to say, VERY well said. I agree about the utter atrocity of the doctrine of Hell.

But I would say that the doctrine is not taught in Judaism, and even some Christians do not accept it as a place of eternal torture. Jehovah's Witnesses, for example believe the unsaved simply die eventually and are not given eternal life, and that is their punishment.

And liberal Christians, (theological liberals, nothing to do with politics) tend to believe God's justice is meted out in a much more merciful way, and I agree, that God can uphold Justice AND Mercy without torturing people forever.

Catholics teach the doctrine of Purgatory, where a lot of imperfect folks go to be purifed for Heaven, MUCH more merciful than the stark dichotomy of Heaven for some, Hell for most.
My theological positions:

-God created us in His image, not the other way around.
-The Bible is redeemed by it's good parts.
-Pure monotheism, simple repentance.
-YHVH is LORD
-The real Jesus is not God, the real YHVH is not a monster.
-Eternal life is a gift from the Living God.
-Keep the Commandments, keep your salvation.
-I have accepted YHVH as my Heavenly Father, LORD and Savior.

I am inspired by Jesus to worship none but YHVH, and to serve only Him.

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

Post #796

Post by myth-one.com »

Elijah John wrote:Catholics teach the doctrine of Purgatory, where a lot of imperfect folks go to be purifed for Heaven, MUCH more merciful than the stark dichotomy of Heaven for some, Hell for most.
Modern Catholic Dictionary wrote:Purgatory is a place or condition in which the souls of the just are purified after death and before they can enter heaven. They may be purified of the guilt of their venial sins, as in this life, by an act of contrition deriving from charity and performed with the help of grace. This sorrow does not, however, affect the punishment for sins, because in the next world there is no longer any possibility of merit. The souls are certainly purified by atoning for the temporal punishments due to sin by their willing acceptance of suffering imposed by God. The sufferings in purgatory are not the same for all, but proportioned to each person's degree of sinfulness.

If Jesus paid the penalty for our sins, why must the "souls of the just" (believers) atone for the temporal punishments due to sin by suffering more in purgatory?

There is no need for purgatory if Jesus truly paid our penalty for sinning!

Believers enter the Kingdom of God as spotless, sinless children of God.

What a comical theology.

Probably created to justify the inquisition.

Elijah John
Savant
Posts: 12236
Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2013 8:23 pm
Location: New England
Has thanked: 11 times
Been thanked: 16 times

Post #797

Post by Elijah John »

[Replying to post 791 by myth-one.com]

It may be comical to you, but it is a more merciful and hopeful doctrine than that of the Fundamentalist's Hell for nonbelievers.
My theological positions:

-God created us in His image, not the other way around.
-The Bible is redeemed by it's good parts.
-Pure monotheism, simple repentance.
-YHVH is LORD
-The real Jesus is not God, the real YHVH is not a monster.
-Eternal life is a gift from the Living God.
-Keep the Commandments, keep your salvation.
-I have accepted YHVH as my Heavenly Father, LORD and Savior.

I am inspired by Jesus to worship none but YHVH, and to serve only Him.

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

Post #798

Post by myth-one.com »

Elijah John wrote:[Replying to post 791 by myth-one.com]

It may be comical to you, but it is a more merciful and hopeful doctrine than that of the Fundamentalist's Hell for nonbelievers.
The fate of the unsaved is set by God -- not any Fundamentalist.

That fate is a quick merciful death. The unsaved are human and the only way out of life is death:
For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. (Romans 6:23)
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. (John 3:16)

Thruit
Apprentice
Posts: 164
Joined: Fri Dec 20, 2013 6:33 pm

Post #799

Post by Thruit »

marketandchurch posted
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.
Jesus equated believing in Him with obeying His teachings:

Luk 6:46
And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?

The NT teaches that people who follow the teachings of Jesus will be saved, even if they've never heard of Him:

For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
Rom.2:14

Elijah John
Savant
Posts: 12236
Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2013 8:23 pm
Location: New England
Has thanked: 11 times
Been thanked: 16 times

Post #800

Post by Elijah John »

Thruit wrote:
marketandchurch posted
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.
Jesus equated believing in Him with obeying His teachings:

Luk 6:46
And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?

The NT teaches that people who follow the teachings of Jesus will be saved, even if they've never heard of Him:

For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
Rom.2:14
I was just thinking along those lines this morning. Is it not true that believing in Jesus means believing in his message? The Golden rule, Love of God, Love of Neighbor, the Beattitudes, and the Lord's prayer?

How can I not love someone who makes JHVH real for me? That is what Jesus does with his TEACHINGS.
My theological positions:

-God created us in His image, not the other way around.
-The Bible is redeemed by it's good parts.
-Pure monotheism, simple repentance.
-YHVH is LORD
-The real Jesus is not God, the real YHVH is not a monster.
-Eternal life is a gift from the Living God.
-Keep the Commandments, keep your salvation.
-I have accepted YHVH as my Heavenly Father, LORD and Savior.

I am inspired by Jesus to worship none but YHVH, and to serve only Him.

Post Reply