A place for good non-believers

[lostguest]

Apologists often say that God doesn't send non-believers to hell, they send themselves by not wanting to be with God. But if that is the case then non-believers don't want to go to hell either and yet they supposedly end up there anyway. So, why wouldn't God create a place for people who are otherwise just as good as believers but whose only "sin" was not believing or accepting God? Why would God create only two options in which one of them "punishes" equally people who do really evil things and people who may actually be better human beings than many Christians but simply do not believe in God.
To me it's the equivalent of someone inviting people to his birthday party and whoever decides to come will have lots of fun, food and everything else but whoever refuses the invitation gets sent to a North Korean prison for life.

[cubey]

As I pointed out, the requirement to get into Heaven in belief in Jesus as your savior for the Christian religion.

And your god fails miserable at making himself believable,from the miracles the bible claims he made to the foolish and morally bankrupt things he said.

John chapter 14:12:
Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes in me will also do the works that I do; and greater works than these will he do, because I go to the Father. Whatever you ask in my name, I will do it, that the Father may be glorified in the Son; if you ask anything in my name, I will do it.
If this were true, we would have completely eradicated all diseases and eliminated all poverty centuries ago.

charles_hamm
The punishment for not believing is separation from God.

No you are wrong it is a living torment enforced by God and in the presence of God for all of eternity.

charles_hamm wrote: to Divine
His son was beaten and nailed to the cross not because God needed it to happen, but because we did.

His son claimed to be god, so how did god kill himself?

charles_hamm
Jesus was the last blood offering because He remained pure, perfect and holy throughout his life.

Any new born infant that dies in its crib can do this,remain pure, perfect and holy throughout the infants life so long as he dies in his crib or sacrificed as a blood offering to your god.

charles_hamm
I believe you will see that He was and is infinitely wiser than any man ever was or ever will be.

Is it a wise thing to drink deadly poison, Jesus claims the christian can do it and it won't harm the christian in any way.
Would you like to give me a demonstration it would go a long way to make your god more believable to me.

Mark 16:15
And [Jesus] said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to the whole creation. He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned. And these signs will accompany those who believe: in my name they will cast out demons; they will speak in new tongues; they will pick up serpents, and if they drink any deadly thing, it will not hurt them; they will lay their hands on the sick, and they will recover."

charles_hamm
Since you were unable to provide an universally accepted definition of good I believe that you can’t say that you doeth good in the eyes of God.

Which is the good thing to doeth in the eyes of God?
Help the Jew in Nazi Germany escape and in the process break German law?
Or
Be a good christian citizen and turn them and those who would help them in to the gestapo?

Romans 13
Obey the government, for God is the one who put it there. All governments have been placed in power by God.
1 Peter 2:13-17
Be subject for the Lord's sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good. For this is the will of God, that by doing good you should put to silence the ignorance of foolish people.

[charles_hamm]

As I pointed out, the requirement to get into Heaven in belief in Jesus as your savior for the Christian religion.

And your god fails miserable at making himself believable,from the miracles the bible claims he made to the foolish and morally bankrupt things he said.

John chapter 14:12:
Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes in me will also do the works that I do; and greater works than these will he do, because I go to the Father. Whatever you ask in my name, I will do it, that the Father may be glorified in the Son; if you ask anything in my name, I will do it.
If this were true, we would have completely eradicated all diseases and eliminated all poverty centuries ago.

Fails miserably huh. The fact that you don't believe doesn't mean He failed. That's like saying your failure to understand psychology is because of all the foolish medical terms and morally bankrupt things the books say. Nice try, but no. Also please prove mankind actually LISTENED to God. BTW we have eradicated some diseases. So once again, nice try.

charles_hamm
The punishment for not believing is separation from God.

No you are wrong it is a living torment enforced by God and in the presence of God for all of eternity.

If I understand you correctly you are bitter about some "living torment" and you think it's punishment to be in the presence of God for eternity. Is that right?

charles_hamm wrote: to Divine
His son was beaten and nailed to the cross not because God needed it to happen, but because we did.

His son claimed to be god, so how did god kill himself?

Jesus gave up his divinity to come down here and save our rear ends from the sins we were committing. He did not kill himself. The Romans tortured and crucified Him.

charles_hamm
Jesus was the last blood offering because He remained pure, perfect and holy throughout his life.

Any new born infant that dies in its crib can do this,remain pure, perfect and holy throughout the infants life so long as he dies in his crib or sacrificed as a blood offering to your god.

A newborn infant never had the chance to make a choice to sin so no the infant can't do the same. Only someone tempted just as we are can do it. So your comparison doesn't work.

charles_hamm
I believe you will see that He was and is infinitely wiser than any man ever was or ever will be.

Is it a wise thing to drink deadly poison, Jesus claims the christian can do it and it won't harm the christian in any way.
Would you like to give me a demonstration it would go a long way to make your god more believable to me.


Mark 16:15
And [Jesus] said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to the whole creation. He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned. And these signs will accompany those who believe: in my name they will cast out demons; they will speak in new tongues; they will pick up serpents, and if they drink any deadly thing, it will not hurt them; they will lay their hands on the sick, and they will recover."

Problem is you only quoted one verse. Look at Mark 16:16 and you'll see that Jesus was only directing this at the disciples and BTW 16 also says that these signs came to pass.

charles_hamm
Since you were unable to provide an universally accepted definition of good I believe that you can’t say that you doeth good in the eyes of God.

Which is the good thing to doeth in the eyes of God?
Help the Jew in Nazi Germany escape and in the process break German law?
Or
Be a good christian citizen and turn them and those who would help them in to the gestapo?

Romans 13
Obey the government, for God is the one who put it there. All governments have been placed in power by God.
1 Peter 2:13-17
Be subject for the Lord's sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good. For this is the will of God, that by doing good you should put to silence the ignorance of foolish people.

A Christian who understood the Bible would have fought to stop Hitler from getting into power and therefore either wouldn't have been alive or Hitler would not have been in power. BTW, read the whole thing and you will see that you are subject to the governors as sent by Him to punish those who do evil and praise those who do good.

[Divine Insight]

I've got to be honest, I've never heard of the Romans starting Christianity. Since the Bible was passed down by word of mouth long before the Romans crucified Jesus I don't see how that works. Also the Romans did not like Christians. They persecuted and killed them.

The Old Testament was not Christianity.

The Romans did not crucify Jesus. On the contrary Pontius Pilate found no fault with Jesus and exonerated him of all charges (and this is according to the New Testament Gossip). Also according to the New Testament rumors it was the Jewish Pharisees who were unhappy about this and incited a mob, and pressured Pontius Pilate in crucifying Jesus in place of the criminal named Barabbas.

So the Romans most certainly did not crucify Jesus. At least not officially. If Roman soldiers were involved with this crucifixion it was done unofficially, and under the table by some freak caving-in on the part of Pontius Pilate to the pressures of the Jewish Pharisees. In fact, many people dismiss this whole rumor as being extremely unlikely to have ever taken place as per the description in the New Testament Gossips.

But even if you believe the New Testament Gossips, you still have the Jewish Pharisees instigating this whole thing, not the Romans. Even the New Testament is crystal clear about the fact that Pontius Pilate found no fault with Jesus and exonerated him of all charges.

And even these times when Jesus supposed lived do not represent "Christianity". There was no Christianity at this time. Jesus himself was a Jew.

Christianity didn't evolve until much later after Jesus had died. And it was indeed basically an invention of Rome when Constantine made it the official religion of Rome. That's when Christianity first because an "official religion" backed by a state. It was Roman Catholicism that ruled the Church.

So Christianity was indeed an invention of the Romans. And I'm sure that Roman Catholicism wasn't Jesus' idea.

His son was beaten and nailed to the cross not because God needed it to happen, but because we did.

IMHO, that is nothing short of an extremely ignorant rumor. I reject that notion just as much as the Jews do. The Jews don't believe their God would stoop that low. I also don't believe that any supposedly all-wise supreme being would stoop that low. I don't believe in the God of Abraham in any case, so the idea that Jesus could be the son of a fictitious God is impossible anyway, IMHO.

Mankind needed a perfect love offering due to our sinful nature.

I disagree. I personally feel that's a very ignorant superstition. In fact, one of the very reason I rejected the God of the Old Testament was because that God was said to be appeased by blood sacrifices. This comes straight out of Greek mythology. These are the kinds of things that Zeus was famous for. Clearly the Hebrews were just copying from the Greeks.

Why would a supernatural creator of the universe be appeased by burnt offerings?

It's sick, IMHO. So this is a very big part of why I had already rejected the Old Testament God.

If you look, the Jews could not keep all 600 and something laws so they were failing to obey God’s word. Mankind needed someone who did obey all the laws and remained sinless to replace the burnt offerings that were being given prior to Jesus. Jesus was the last blood offering because He remained pure, perfect and holy throughout his life.

I reject that entire superstition. I personally think it's far too ignorant to be associated with any supposedly all-wise all-supreme creator.

If you look, the Jews at that time where a very ignorant culture. They were stoning people to death in the name of their God of Abraham. Jesus himself, according to these very rumors, is said to have renounced that very act. Jesus taught people not to judge one another and not to cast the first stone. So Jesus himself rejected those ancient superstitions of the Old Testament God.

The Jews were also seeking revenge as in an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, also taught by the God of the Old Testament. Again, even the New Testament Gossips have Jesus renouncing that behavior and teaching people to forgive others and to turn the other cheek (i.e. not to seek revenge)

So Jesus was totally renouncing the God of the Old Testament even according to the New Testament Gossips.

Please tell me why you God would “have “men disobey any of His commands. I believe that before you presume God to be ignorant you should look at the nature of man before Jesus came. I believe you will see that He was and is infinitely wiser than any man ever was or ever will be.

Jesus taught nothing new. Absolutely nothing new.

On the contrary men like Lao Tzu, Confucius, and Siddhartha Gautama had all taught moral values superior to those of these ancient Jews long before Jesus had ever been born. The idea that Jesus had anything new to offer is a fallacy of Christianity.

In, fact, when I was a Christian and being taught these story of Jesus, I personally gave Jesus a "Thumbs up!".

Why? Well because FINALLY, in these absurdly ignorant fables a character comes along who actually thinks like me! Jesus was doing me a favor. He was renouncing the ignorance that had been taught in the Old Testament and replacing it with values that far better suit my own views and values.

But why should that be? And what would that mean? It would mean that I had obviously been in total disagreement with "God's Righteousness" in the Old Testament, and now Jesus comes along and basically supports my rejection of the Old Testament God as being highly immoral.

If anything I see Jesus speaking for me. Not teaching me how to behave.

If you need Jesus to teach you how to behave, all I can say is that you must not have very high moral values in the first place.

And if you think the directives and actions of the God of the Old Testament were righteous in anyway, then you're in gross disagreement with me, and obviously with Jesus too.

You called the doctrine “religious bigotries�. If a person believes and supports that doctrine then how can you not be calling the person a bigot as well? I believe you are misunderstanding when a Christian tells you this. I will speak only for me, but when I speak of God’s judgment on non-believers I believe it’s just and fair. I’m no victim of anything and I would venture to say most Christians are not either.

I disagree. When I see Christian activists who are harassing gays, for example, they problem that these are "their prejudices" but rather it's "God's will". That's hogwash, IMHO.

A cult that uses their God as an excuse to activity incite bigotry is participating in that bigotry even though the bigotry itself may have originally come from the doctrine of the cult.

And this also applies to the belittlement of non-believers by insinuating that they are less than moral people because they are supposedly "rejecting God" if they refuse to join and support your religious cult.

IMHO, this type of bigotry held out in the name of a "God" should be outlawed.

The bigotry is still there. Whether it comes from you, or from the dogma that you support is really irrelevant. Proclaiming that it's "God's bigotry" and not yours is baloney. That's a cheap excuse, IMHO.

So I renounce this type of religious behavior whether it's Christian bigotry being held out in the name of Jesus as "The Christ" or Islamic bigotry being held out in the name of Allah. It doesn't matter the end result is the same.

Bigotry held out in the name of a God is still bigotry.

Wrong. You don't have to be a horrible person (by human standards anyway) to be in Hell. Hell is just a place apart from God. I guess the first question I would want to ask a non believer is why they would want to be around God when they spent their entire life saying he didn't exist?

You have gotten this all wrong. I never said you were an atheist. We are discussing Christianity so as this conversation pertains to Christianity you are a non-believer, as you have already stated. The assumption is on your part, not mine. Once again we are discussing Christianity so Christianity does represent God. There is no arrogance involved; only sticking to the topic at hand. Christianity has everything to do with God. It’s based on God and His son. It’s about living as God would have you live. It’s about attempting to act as Jesus did when He was on Earth. We fail, but we still try.[/quote]

But you're still using the term "God" as though Christianity owns the patent on the term. I don't reject God where the term God is permitted to simply mean the creator of reality.

Your implication that I would somehow be "rejecting God" if I merely reject Christianity is indeed your own demand that Christianity owns the patent rights on "God".

I don't need to accept Greek mythology to accept "God", nor do I need to accept Hebrew mythology to accept "God".

And this is what Christians need to learn.

If I worship "God" through an entirely different religion, then I am still acknowledging and worshiping God. For you to claim that I have "rejected God" because I refuse to cower down to Christianity, is nothing short of Christian arrogance.

If you want to believe in Christianity as a matter of FAITH. By all means do so.

I can even respect that, if and only if, you show respect for my relationship with God. But if you're going to treat me like a person who has rejected God because I don't worship your religious cult, then you are the one who is practicing religious bigotry, not me.

In fact, I would hold that this should also be true for atheists. Atheists aren't "rejecting God". They simply don't believe there's sufficient reason to believe in one. And that is entirely between them and God (if a God exists). Let God decide whether or not atheists are rejecting God. It's not up to you or your cult to say.

In other words, if you personally believe that to reject Jesus is to reject God, fine. That's YOUR BELIEF. But when you start acting like it must be true for others you've crossed over a line that is unforgivable, IMHO.

I disagree with your misinterpretation of the verses and misapplication of them. I agree with every part of Christianity. You speak to the way you view Christianity. You do not speak to the reality of it. I was speaking to your views of it, which is not Christianity itself, but in effect a new religion based on your views only.

Well, I disagree with you. Apparently you aren't happy with the actual things being said in these scriptures either if you need to water them down to defend them.

The Bible says Psalms14:1: The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.

There is none that doeth good.

Apparently you reject that, and have decided to water it down to mean something more palatable for you.

So as far as I'm concerned you are the one who is misrepresenting these ancient scriptures, not me.

You have your reasons for rejecting it, but I don’t know that I would consider them solid. I think it is you would owe God an apology for the names you have called him, the twisted views of doctrine you have presented and presenting Christianity as a false religion. He doesn’t demand you believe. He states to be with him in eternity one must believe. There’s a big difference.

Whether you consider them to be solid or not is totally irrelevant.

As far as apologies are concerned, the Biblical God would owe all of humanity an apology, not just me.

Just look at the shambles of the Abrahamic religions. They are nothing short of a joke. And a God expects us to believe in these absurd fables in order to be "saved". That makes absolutely no sense to me, and it makes no sense to many of the most brilliant minds of humanity, from Isaac Newton, to Albert Einstein, Carl Sagan, Richard Feynman, Stephen Hawking, and the list goes on and on.

How could so many brilliant minds "Not understand" a supposedly all-knowing supreme God?

As far as I'm concerned that's not even possible. So unless we proclaim all of the men I listed above (and thousands more like them) to be "backbiters, and haters of God", I think it's quite safe to dismiss these ancient fables as being utterly absurd.

You "defense" of these ancient scriptures has no held up.

There is no God to "offend" in these fables, because the fables themselves do not describe a God that is sane. It's would necessarily need to be an insane and highly demonic God. So there's nothing there worthy of defending.

Also why should you need to defend a God?

Should an all-wise supreme being be able to get his message across to people in a clear and unambiguous way himself?

If the Bible (i.e. God's Book) failed to convince me, then how extremely arrogant would it be of you to think that you could convince me? In order for that to happen you would necessarily need to succeed where this God himself had failed.

Evangelism itself is nothing more than a proclamation that the evangelist thinks he or she can succeed where their God had failed.

Any God who even needs evangelists is already a failed God.

[Goat]

Apologists often say that God doesn't send non-believers to hell, they send themselves by not wanting to be with God. But if that is the case then non-believers don't want to go to hell either and yet they supposedly end up there anyway. So, why wouldn't God create a place for people who are otherwise just as good as believers but whose only "sin" was not believing or accepting God? Why would God create only two options in which one of them "punishes" equally people who do really evil things and people who may actually be better human beings than many Christians but simply do not believe in God.
To me it's the equivalent of someone inviting people to his birthday party and whoever decides to come will have lots of fun, food and everything else but whoever refuses the invitation gets sent to a North Korean prison for life.

My answer in short, lost guest, is because the absence of God, as taught by the Bible, is Hell.

Can you quote chapter and verse for that? I won't even ask you to show the bible is true (at this point)

[cubey]

As I pointed out, the requirement to get into Heaven in belief in Jesus as your savior for the Christian religion.

And your god fails miserable at making himself believable,from the miracles the bible claims he made to the foolish and morally bankrupt things he said.

John chapter 14:12:
Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes in me will also do the works that I do; and greater works than these will he do, because I go to the Father. Whatever you ask in my name, I will do it, that the Father may be glorified in the Son; if you ask anything in my name, I will do it.
If this were true, we would have completely eradicated all diseases and eliminated all poverty centuries ago.

charles_hamm
Fails miserably huh. The fact that you don't believe doesn't mean He failed.

Yes it does because an all knowing god, that is, an all knowageable god failed to get me to believe him,surly he could of done better than that.

charles_hamm
Also please prove mankind actually LISTENED to God.

Why should I have to prove to you that mankind actually LISTENS to God that does not exist.
You don't believe in god, what you believe in are the words of men, those men that wrote the bible.
And if your going to say the the bible is the inspierd word of god then you are ether just making a baseless claim or you believe in the human person that made that claim.

charles_hamm
BTW we have eradicated some diseases. So once again, nice try.

With secular science, nice try

charles_hamm

cubey

charles_hamm
The punishment for not believing is separation from God.

No you are wrong it is a living torment enforced by God and in the presence of God for all of eternity.

If I understand you correctly you are bitter about some "living torment" and you think it's punishment to be in the presence of God for eternity. Is that right?

No just stating what it says in Revelations

charles_hamm

cubey

charles_hamm wrote: to Divine
His son was beaten and nailed to the cross not because God needed it to happen, but because we did.

His son claimed to be god, so how did god kill himself?

Jesus gave up his divinity to come down here and save our rear ends from the sins we were committing. He did not kill himself. The Romans tortured and crucified Him.

wrong

John 10:18
No one can take my life from me. I lay down my life voluntarily. For I have the right to lay it down when I want to and also the power to take it again. For my Father has given me this command."
To take it up again means he god cannot be dead only the bag of flesh he was using was dead.

This proves that Jesus was not a man, because no man has the power to reverse death when they are already dead.
Dead men have no power period and gods creation cannot reverse death,therefore jesus was not a man.
He could only be a god walking around in a bag of flesh and that does not make him a man.
So i ask the question again how did god kill himself?

charles_hamm

cubey

charles_hamm
Jesus was the last blood offering because He remained pure, perfect and holy throughout his life.

Any new born infant that dies in its crib can do this,remain pure, perfect and holy throughout the infants life so long as he dies in his crib or sacrificed as a blood offering to your god.

A newborn infant never had the chance to make a choice to sin so no the infant can't do the same. Only someone tempted just as we are can do it. So your comparison doesn't work.

wrong
The lambs the Jews used to sacrifice to god never had the chance to make a choice to sin and god accepted the lamb as the offering.

charles_hamm

cubey

charles_hamm
I believe you will see that He was and is infinitely wiser than any man ever was or ever will be.

Is it a wise thing to drink deadly poison, Jesus claims the christian can do it and it won't harm the christian in any way.
Would you like to give me a demonstration it would go a long way to make your god more believable to me.


Mark 16:15
And [Jesus] said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to the whole creation. He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned. And these signs will accompany those who believe: in my name they will cast out demons; they will speak in new tongues; they will pick up serpents, and if they drink any deadly thing, it will not hurt them; they will lay their hands on the sick, and they will recover."

Problem is you only quoted one verse.

wrong i quoted Mark 16 15-18 that includes Mark 16:16

charles_hamm
Look at Mark 16:16 and you'll see that Jesus was only directing this at the disciples

It says in
mark 16 14,
14 Later Jesus appeared to the Eleven

So when he speaks here he is only talking to the eleven.
15 He said to them, Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation. 16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. 17 And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; 18 they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well.
It does not say "these signs will accompany you, my disciples who believe"
It says "Whoever believes and is baptized" and "these signs will accompany those who believe"
Whoever means any baptized believer.
Those who believe means any baptized believer.

charles_hamm
and BTW 16 also says that these signs came to pass.

as the word spreads out to all creation.

charles_hamm

cubey

charles_hamm
Since you were unable to provide an universally accepted definition of good I believe that you can’t say that you doeth good in the eyes of God.

Which is the good thing to doeth in the eyes of God?
Help the Jew in Nazi Germany escape and in the process break German law?
Or
Be a good christian citizen and turn them and those who would help them in to the gestapo?

Romans 13
Obey the government, for God is the one who put it there. All governments have been placed in power by God.
1 Peter 2:13-17
Be subject for the Lord's sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good. For this is the will of God, that by doing good you should put to silence the ignorance of foolish people.

A Christian who understood the Bible would have fought to stop Hitler from getting into power and therefore either wouldn't have been alive or Hitler would not have been in power. BTW, read the whole thing and you will see that you are subject to the governors as sent by Him to punish those who do evil and praise those who do good.

Evidently you don't understand whats its saying
Be subject for the Lord's sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme <this would include Hitlers regime.
Those emperorer's and governors are the ones doing the evil that are placed in power by your God, because it says all governments have been placed in power by God.

[charles_hamm]

As I pointed out, the requirement to get into Heaven in belief in Jesus as your savior for the Christian religion.

And your god fails miserable at making himself believable,from the miracles the bible claims he made to the foolish and morally bankrupt things he said.

John chapter 14:12:
Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes in me will also do the works that I do; and greater works than these will he do, because I go to the Father. Whatever you ask in my name, I will do it, that the Father may be glorified in the Son; if you ask anything in my name, I will do it.
If this were true, we would have completely eradicated all diseases and eliminated all poverty centuries ago.

charles_hamm
Fails miserably huh. The fact that you don't believe doesn't mean He failed.

Yes it does because an all knowing god, that is, an all knowageable god failed to get me to believe him,surly he could of done better than that.

So because God gave you all need to believe and you refused He’s at fault. That doesn’t make any sense. I notice you left out my example. It shows the same logic that you have presented and that logic is not accepted by mankind so why would God accept it? I’ll let you reason this out for yourself. If you took, say calculus and you refused to read the book, take notes in class, do any work given out or ask the professor any questions is it the professors fault for your lack of understanding?

charles_hamm
Also please prove mankind actually LISTENED to God.

Why should I have to prove to you that mankind actually LISTENS to God that does not exist.
You don't believe in god, what you believe in are the words of men, those men that wrote the bible.
And if your going to say the the bible is the inspierd word of god then you are ether just making a baseless claim or you believe in the human person that made that claim.

Well first you would need to prove God doesn’t exist. You’ve made a positive assertion here, therefore the burden of proof falls on you, not me. If you can’t prove it then my question is valid. I believe that the Bible is the divinely inspired word of God, so yes I do believe in God. It’s called a belief. We all have them. I could call your claim that God does not exist baseless as well.

charles_hamm
BTW we have eradicated some diseases. So once again, nice try.

With secular science, nice try

You got me… except for the fact that you can’t even remotely show that ALL the scientist were atheist, nor can you show that the funding for the research that led to these cures did not come from Christians.

charles_hamm

cubey

charles_hamm
The punishment for not believing is separation from God.

No you are wrong it is a living torment enforced by God and in the presence of God for all of eternity.

If I understand you correctly you are bitter about some "living torment" and you think it's punishment to be in the presence of God for eternity. Is that right?

No just stating what it says in Revelations

Actually no you are incorrect here. Revelation 14 is only seen as a preview of Babylon falling. If you will read Revelation 19 you’ll see the reality of Hell. Living torment in the presence of God is not for all eternity. Separation from God in a lake of fire is. My advice is to read the entire book before quoting it.

charles_hamm

cubey

charles_hamm wrote: to Divine
His son was beaten and nailed to the cross not because God needed it to happen, but because we did.

His son claimed to be god, so how did god kill himself?

Jesus gave up his divinity to come down here and save our rear ends from the sins we were committing. He did not kill himself. The Romans tortured and crucified Him.

wrong

John 10:18
No one can take my life from me. I lay down my life voluntarily. For I have the right to lay it down when I want to and also the power to take it again. For my Father has given me this command."
To take it up again means he god cannot be dead only the bag of flesh he was using was dead.

This proves that Jesus was not a man, because no man has the power to reverse death when they are already dead.
Dead men have no power period and gods creation cannot reverse death,therefore jesus was not a man.
He could only be a god walking around in a bag of flesh and that does not make him a man.
So i ask the question again how did god kill himself?

John 10:18 explained
No one can take my life from me- No one can force me to die.
I lay down my life voluntarily- I sacrifice my life.
I have the right to lay it down when I want- I have the right to sacrifice my life when I want to.
The power to take it again- the power to take my life that is sacrificed voluntarily back.
Now that the explanation is done I’ll address your comments. You are right God is not dead nor did God the Son die on the cross. Jesus the human died on the cross. I believe that you probably got confused because I did not include “nature� after the divinity and for that I apologize. I’ll start with the misconception that Jesus is a creation of God. Jesus is not a creation of God. He is one part of a triune God. He is to be exact, God the Son. If you read Revelation 1:8 Jesus calls himself the Alpha and Omega. Jesus became a man on Earth. He did not, however, give up His place as God the Son. His humanity is shown in Luke 2:7, Galatians 4:4, Matthew 4:2, and John 4:6 and 19:28. There are more verses if you need to see them that show He was a man. Your statement about being a God walking around in a bag of flesh is way off target. If He were only God then He could not die or He would not be eternal. So Jesus, in order to be eternal, had to be both man and God simultaneously. So the answer to your question is still, he didn’t.

charles_hamm

cubey

charles_hamm
Jesus was the last blood offering because He remained pure, perfect and holy throughout his life.

Any new born infant that dies in its crib can do this,remain pure, perfect and holy throughout the infants life so long as he dies in his crib or sacrificed as a blood offering to your god.

A newborn infant never had the chance to make a choice to sin so no the infant can't do the same. Only someone tempted just as we are can do it. So your comparison doesn't work.

wrong
The lambs the Jews used to sacrifice to god never had the chance to make a choice to sin and god accepted the lamb as the offering.

The lambs were soulless creatures so they were never a pure, perfect and holy sacrifice. A child who dies in its crib is only sinless because it’s covered by the blood of Jesus’ death from birth due to the lack of a choice. So once again the sacrifice of an infant could not take the place of Jesus’ death.

charles_hamm

cubey

charles_hamm
I believe you will see that He was and is infinitely wiser than any man ever was or ever will be.

Is it a wise thing to drink deadly poison, Jesus claims the christian can do it and it won't harm the christian in any way.
Would you like to give me a demonstration it would go a long way to make your god more believable to me.


Mark 16:15
And [Jesus] said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to the whole creation. He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned. And these signs will accompany those who believe: in my name they will cast out demons; they will speak in new tongues; they will pick up serpents, and if they drink any deadly thing, it will not hurt them; they will lay their hands on the sick, and they will recover."

Problem is you only quoted one verse.

wrong i quoted Mark 16 15-18 that includes Mark 16:16

charles_hamm
Look at Mark 16:16 and you'll see that Jesus was only directing this at the disciples

It says in
mark 16 14,
14 Later Jesus appeared to the Eleven

So when he speaks here he is only talking to the eleven.
15 He said to them, Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation. 16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. 17 And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; 18 they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well.
It does not say "these signs will accompany you, my disciples who believe"
It says "Whoever believes and is baptized" and "these signs will accompany those who believe"
Whoever means any baptized believer.
Those who believe means any baptized believer.

charles_hamm
and BTW 16 also says that these signs came to pass.

as the word spreads out to all creation

Look at Mark 16:12-19 and you will get the wisdom behind Jesus’ statements. No actually it doesn’t and if you read what I’ve listed you will see that Jesus rebuked the disciples for their lack of faith in the people who said they saw Him resurrected prior to telling them to go into the entire world. He is clearly increasing their faith in Him by performing these signs so they can be more faithful. The signs came to pass through the disciples as they went out everywhere and preached AND the Lord worked with them. It never says He promised any of the people who heard the disciples preach that if they went and preached to someone else the same signs would be shown. He only promised to confirm His work with the signs that accompanied the disciples.

charles_hamm

cubey

charles_hamm
Since you were unable to provide an universally accepted definition of good I believe that you can’t say that you doeth good in the eyes of God.

Which is the good thing to doeth in the eyes of God?
Help the Jew in Nazi Germany escape and in the process break German law?
Or
Be a good christian citizen and turn them and those who would help them in to the gestapo?

Romans 13
Obey the government, for God is the one who put it there. All governments have been placed in power by God.
1 Peter 2:13-17
Be subject for the Lord's sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good. For this is the will of God, that by doing good you should put to silence the ignorance of foolish people.

A Christian who understood the Bible would have fought to stop Hitler from getting into power and therefore either wouldn't have been alive or Hitler would not have been in power. BTW, read the whole thing and you will see that you are subject to the governors as sent by Him to punish those who do evil and praise those who do good.

Evidently you don't understand whats its saying
Be subject for the Lord's sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme <this would include Hitlers regime.
Those emperorer's and governors are the ones doing the evil that are placed in power by your God, because it says all governments have been placed in power by God.

All right so if you just want an either do a or b then the proper response is a, be a Christian and help the Jew in Nazi Germany escape and in the process break German law. Under 1 Peter 2:11-23 it tells you to live Godly in a pagan society. Verse 2:12 says “Live such good lives among the pagans that, though they accuse of doing wrong, they may see your good deeds and glorify God on the day He visits us.� If you had continued on 18-21 tells you it is commendable to bear the pain of unjust suffering in the eyes of God. Even verse 16, which you quoted, tells you not to use your freedom to cover-up for evil. Option b actually is mislabeled as being the good Christian.

[Truely Free]

Apologists often say that God doesn't send non-believers to hell, they send themselves by not wanting to be with God. But if that is the case then non-believers don't want to go to hell either and yet they supposedly end up there anyway. So, why wouldn't God create a place for people who are otherwise just as good as believers but whose only "sin" was not believing or accepting God? Why would God create only two options in which one of them "punishes" equally people who do really evil things and people who may actually be better human beings than many Christians but simply do not believe in God.
To me it's the equivalent of someone inviting people to his birthday party and whoever decides to come will have lots of fun, food and everything else but whoever refuses the invitation gets sent to a North Korean prison for life.

My answer in short, lost guest, is because the absence of God, as taught by the Bible, is Hell.

Can you quote chapter and verse for that? I won't even ask you to show the bible is true (at this point)

I'm so happy, I finally figured out how to do that:)
Goat, I want to thank you for the challenge. I see now that a large part of my understanding on the presence of God in hell was based on word of mouth, not on study. With a little bit of study I have seen that a larger portion of Christianity (and some of them very solid theologically) believe that God's presence is in hell, so I will have to do some more research on that. From what I have read already, the case seems to lean more in the direction in which I already suggested.
I will list a few verses apart from my own interpretation, for both the negative and affirmative. Either way, the doctrine of hell still stands firm. A lot of it depends on whether you approach the Bible with a "covenant" theology or a "dispensationalist" theology, if you are familiar with the terms.
For the affirmative: Revelation 9:9-11, Psalm 139:7-8. Most further argument and verses depend on the theology of "omni-presence"
For the negative: (there are many, but I will try to choose those directly linked with hell) Matthew 7:21-23, Matthew 25:41, Matthew 22 (indicates casting out of the presence) Matthew 27:46 (when suffering our punishment Christ feels the absence of his Father)
I think the wisest teaching I've seen thus far, that best explains both sides is that God is present, but without our mediator Christ, meaning He is present, but far off pouring out wrath. In this, the presence of God is still not felt by those suffering torment, as God's presence is far off and they are not in fellowship, where in heaven the fellowship of God and His Son are enjoyed by those who love Him. This makes it possible for us to still choose to be apart from God, apart from His Son and yet subject to His constant wrath.
Like I said, thank you for the challenge, I had only been hearing one side of the argument.
I appreciate also your willingness to accept the Bible as being authoritative in the thread. It would be hard to argue about the nature of hell (the OP) while also arguing for the existence of Hell.

[Divine Insight]

So because God gave you all need to believe and you refused He’s at fault. That doesn’t make any sense. I notice you left out my example. It shows the same logic that you have presented and that logic is not accepted by mankind so why would God accept it? I’ll let you reason this out for yourself. If you took, say calculus and you refused to read the book, take notes in class, do any work given out or ask the professor any questions is it the professors fault for your lack of understanding?

Charles, this is a totally false analogy. It's so false I would personally consider it to be an outright fraudulent analogy. Either that, or you have no clue about calculus at all.

In calculus everything is presenting logically in steps that make perfect sense and follow from the previous understanding. This is no way true of the Biblical fables.

The Biblical fables are so ambiguous and absurd that even the most devout religious people can't agree on what they are saying. The Jews reject that Jesus was "The Christ", as do the Muslims. Both of those cultures took the Old Testament in entirely different direction.

The Christians who accept the hearsay superstitious rumors about Jesus also violently disagree with each other over what the fables are about.

Christian Protestants are all a bunch of heathens who have rejected the "Body of Christ" in the Catholic Church and the authority of the divinely ordained Pope.

Furthermore these heathen Protestants continue to protest against each others view. There are literally thousands, some say tens of thousands of rebellious Protestantisms that reject the Body of Christ.

Clearly the most dedicated theological scholars cannot agree on what the Biblical fables have to say.

There does not exist a sane reason for anyone to believe in the Bible.

Anyone who does so is necessarily doing so as a matter of pure blind faith in the hope that those absurdly unrealistic superstitious rumors might be true.

There is not a sane reason in the world to believe in the Biblical fables of the ancient Hebrews.

So the fabled Hebrew God did not give everyone everything they need to believe it. On the contrary, those fables give countless valid reasons to dismiss the entire thing as having no more credibility than Greek Mythology.

There is no rational reason for a supposedly Almighty God to as pathetically lame and inept as the God portrayed by the ancient Hebrews. In fact, this very observation is precisely why we can easily and safely dismiss them as being false superstitions.

If the Bible made as much sense as a calculus book you'd have a point. But it doesn't even remotely come close.

Your analogy is a totally false analogy. Wishful thinking on your part no doubt.

What you've really just revealed to us is that there is no good reason to believe in the Bible because unlike a reasonable book like a calculus book the Bible doesn't make any sense at all.

[charles_hamm]

So because God gave you all need to believe and you refused He’s at fault. That doesn’t make any sense. I notice you left out my example. It shows the same logic that you have presented and that logic is not accepted by mankind so why would God accept it? I’ll let you reason this out for yourself. If you took, say calculus and you refused to read the book, take notes in class, do any work given out or ask the professor any questions is it the professors fault for your lack of understanding?

Charles, this is a totally false analogy. It's so false I would personally consider it to be an outright fraudulent analogy. Either that, or you have no clue about calculus at all.

In calculus everything is presenting logically in steps that make perfect sense and follow from the previous understanding. This is no way true of the Biblical fables.

The Biblical fables are so ambiguous and absurd that even the most devout religious people can't agree on what they are saying. The Jews reject that Jesus was "The Christ", as do the Muslims. Both of those cultures took the Old Testament in entirely different direction.

The Christians who accept the hearsay superstitious rumors about Jesus also violently disagree with each other over what the fables are about.

Christian Protestants are all a bunch of heathens who have rejected the "Body of Christ" in the Catholic Church and the authority of the divinely ordained Pope.

Furthermore these heathen Protestants continue to protest against each others view. There are literally thousands, some say tens of thousands of rebellious Protestantisms that reject the Body of Christ.

Clearly the most dedicated theological scholars cannot agree on what the Biblical fables have to say.

There does not exist a sane reason for anyone to believe in the Bible.

Anyone who does so is necessarily doing so as a matter of pure blind faith in the hope that those absurdly unrealistic superstitious rumors might be true.

There is not a sane reason in the world to believe in the Biblical fables of the ancient Hebrews.

So the fabled Hebrew God did not give everyone everything they need to believe it. On the contrary, those fables give countless valid reasons to dismiss the entire thing as having no more credibility than Greek Mythology.

There is no rational reason for a supposedly Almighty God to as pathetically lame and inept as the God portrayed by the ancient Hebrews. In fact, this very observation is precisely why we can easily and safely dismiss them as being false superstitions.

If the Bible made as much sense as a calculus book you'd have a point. But it doesn't even remotely come close.

Your analogy is a totally false analogy. Wishful thinking on your part no doubt.

What you've really just revealed to us is that there is no good reason to believe in the Bible because unlike a reasonable book like a calculus book the Bible doesn't make any sense at all.

My analogy is very representative of what is happening. I could have used any subject and still applies. The problem is you are trying to define what makes sense, and you can only do that for yourself. Where your argument fails is in the fact that you already assume the Bible is the only source for knowledge on the subject. I'll spell out the analogy for you so you understand it. Read the book- read your Bible. take notes in class- take notes in Sunday school and service so you can go back and apply them to the Bible to get a better understanding. do any work given out- you can't just read the book, you have to answer questions that will be asked about the book. ask the professor questions- pray to God for the wisdom to understand the Bible. Or a person could do none of this and just blaim the professor.

BTW, my minor was in math, so yes I know a little something about calculus.

[Truely Free]

Goat, I don't want to be a nag, but I did want to be sure to say this so that God would receive glory.
The argument I gave was not a stand alone argument. Charles_hamm gave a very well thought through answer in the first reply to the OP. In conjunction to that if the Bible is true, and if god is the God described in the Bible, as I believe Him to be, the greatest sin would be simply to deny Him.
The Bible describes God as perfect, Holy, loving, creator of the universe and maintainer there-of, and many more.(Exodus 34:5-7, Numbers 23:19,Psalm 50:6, Psalm 166:5, Proverbs 30:5, Galatian 5:6-7, It describes us as enemies of God by nature, sinful from the depths of our hearts,unworthy to look upon God, children of the devil and fully dependent upon a savior. (Romans 3:23, Isaiah 64:6, Psalm 51:5, Jeremiah 17:9, Ecclesiates 7:20, Job 15:14-16, 1 John 1:10, 1 John 3:4, James 4:17, Luke 18:19 exc.
A common illustration points out: if you hit me, the consequences will be reletively small, if you strike the President or king, the consequences much greater. Just like that, if we sin against man, the consquences are great, God protects those He loves. If we sin against God, the consequences are so much greater, He must protect His glory for He is God. To stop being a righteous judge, stop seeking his glory (for He alone is worthy of Glory) and to accept sin is to no longer be God. He cannot deny Himself. (2 Timothy 2:13)
The standard set is not "good" or even "perfect", the standard set is the perfection of God, which simply cannot be done, not by man. (jeremiah 17:9, Luke 6:45) This is why God provided a Savior to become sin for us so that we can receive His righteousness. (2 Corinthians 5:21). To deny that gift is not only to deny God, but to deny the only way through which we can be saved (act 4:12).
There is no middle ground. If we accept Christ, we go to heaven; if we deny Christ, there is no greater sin, and we are worthy of the depths of Hell. To say we don't need Christ is to say "I don't want to be with God, I want to BE God. God's way is not good enough for me." and so we go the way of Satan who declared war on God the same way.
This is the gospel: Accept the son of God, His ultimate act of love and sacrifice for the people He refused to live without; or make yourself God and find out what happen to those who try to dethrown an all powerful God.
I don't say it to be "exclusive" or "condemn" or preach. I am the worst of sinners with the best of saviors. I, of all people, cannot convince you of anything. But, truth is truth, and If God is who the Bible says He is, than not to tell this truth is to be a passive witness to a horrible fate.
(Pluss, I needed to answer the OP) It all comes down to whether or not you will believe the Bible.