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.

[Iam]

edit

[Iam]

They knew they were doing what God told them not to do. They probably didn't understand the implications or how it would allow sin to enter the world or what sin is, but they still chose to do what God told them not to do.

Sure, but how would they know that doing what God told them not to do is wrong ?
How would they have any understanding of obedience ?

They didn't understand "good and evil". But they did something evil. God's standard doesn't allow for a mulligan. Evil gets punished.

As a parent, I can say that the very first time you punish your child, they didn't understand that what they did was bad before they did it. But you still need to punish them so they know it's bad. We don't give kids a "pass" for their first 18 months because they don't know what's right and wrong. People learn by being punished.

No but you have taught them since they were born the difference between obedience and disobedience, right and wrong. Something denied by your all loving god to Adam and Eve before he punished all of mankind for the error this omnipotent god created. It would seem that you don't have passages from the apologists handbook to contend my posts, that's a shame. Do you have anything you can think up yourself? Yeah, I see, apparently not. Do you think it's time to withdraw?

[McCulloch]

So you are saying that neither Adam nor Eve had a sinful nature ? If that was true, they could not have being 'tempted' in the first place, because there was nothing in them that would 'draw' them to disobedience.

Adam and Eve didn't begin with a sinful nature. They were completely free to choose to obey or disobey. There was no inclination favoring either option. They chose to disobey, and they were punished by being given a natural inclination toward sin.

Adam and Eve, it is said, were created in the image of God. How can anything that is in God's own image have a sinful nature? However, some Christian apologists seem to portray the first couple as being moral idiots. They had no inclination towards good or evil, both seemed indistinguishable to them. They had not partaken of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. So it was entirely arbitrary to them. But the serpent was cunning and deceived them into the evil choice. Why the heck would a loving god allow a deceitful talking snake into the Garden with these innocents. Did God want them to sin? Surely, being omniscient, or at the very least very smart, he could have foreseen the consequences! Oh, you might say, He wanted them to make a free choice. But a free choice without information is an arbitrary choice. And they were prohibited from the tree of knowledge, fed incorrect information and then told to choose. You have portrayed a God that is grossly unfair, who set them up for failure.

And then if that is not bad enough, you have asserted that this sinful nature seems to be inheritable. Everything we know about biology points to the fact that acquired traits are not inheritable. Yet, Adam and Eve were said to have acquired the sinful nature and then passed it on to their offspring. This is ridiculous both morally and biologically.

[aglassdarkly]

It would seem that you don't have passages from the apologists handbook to contend my posts, that's a shame.

I just don't have the patience to try to piece together your bad arguments and dig through your insults to try and find substance. Fortunately, there's so little meaning in your posts that I don't feel like I have to respond.

[aglassdarkly]

And then if that is not bad enough, you have asserted that this sinful nature seems to be inheritable. Everything we know about biology points to the fact that acquired traits are not inheritable. Yet, Adam and Eve were said to have acquired the sinful nature and then passed it on to their offspring. This is ridiculous both morally and biologically.

Oh, does biology tell us about spiritual traits?

[Dantalion]

It would seem that you don't have passages from the apologists handbook to contend my posts, that's a shame.

I just don't have the patience to try to piece together your bad arguments and dig through your insults to try and find substance. Fortunately, there's so little meaning in your posts that I don't feel like I have to respond.

Ah I see, when somebody arrogantly points out the flaws in your argument, this is your natural defense mechanism kicking in.
I agree Iam was way too hostile towards you, but this reaction of yours makes no sense whatsoever.
You see, aside from his arrogance, he actually DOES make good points worthy of being addressed by you.
Don't get me wrong, he was insulting you, however that does not change the fact that he does present good arguments.
I hope you can see the difference between arguments+insults, and just insults, which is how you are replying to him now, and how you were replying to me in other treads a several minutes ago.

[McCulloch]

They knew they were doing what God told them not to do. They probably didn't understand the implications or how it would allow sin to enter the world or what sin is, but they still chose to do what God told them not to do.

Sure, but how would they know that doing what God told them not to do is wrong ?
How would they have any understanding of obedience ?

They didn't understand "good and evil". But they did something evil. God's standard doesn't allow for a mulligan. Evil gets punished.

As a parent, I can say that the very first time you punish your child, they didn't understand that what they did was bad before they did it. But you still need to punish them so they know it's bad. We don't give kids a "pass" for their first 18 months because they don't know what's right and wrong. People learn by being punished.

I'm really going to learn well from being sent to eternal torment! Right?
If you, as a parent, need for your children to face the consequences of wrong choices, if you are fair and just, you will temper the consequence if the choice was made in ignorance. Alright, second time through, they cannot plead ignorance, but first mistakes should not have eternal consequences. The God you describe is not a loving Father but the impersonal Nature of the Universe or worse, the cruel bully who sets innocents up for failure and then deals out unfair and excessive punishment.

To carry on with the golf metaphor, why wouldn't a God give a mulligan to someone who is just beginning to learn the game on his very first round, who is prohibited from looking at the rules and is given a bad caddy?

[Iam]

It would seem that you don't have passages from the apologists handbook to contend my posts, that's a shame.

I just don't have the patience to try to piece together your bad arguments and dig through your insults to try and find substance. Fortunately, there's so little meaning in your posts that I don't feel like I have to respond.

I'm not permitted to call you a pathetic fool and so I won't. But when did you understand the difference between obedience and disobedience? When did you become aware of the difference between obeying a wrongful command and disobeying it?
You are so frightened of my questions I can hear your knees knocking. There is no rational response to my questions and that is why you have run faster than Usain Bolt from answering them. You are in excellent company, just about every theist confronted by these questions pulls out the coward ticket and runs away. I'm rather chuffed that you have kept their record in tact.

[Iam]

It would seem that you don't have passages from the apologists handbook to contend my posts, that's a shame.

I just don't have the patience to try to piece together your bad arguments and dig through your insults to try and find substance. Fortunately, there's so little meaning in your posts that I don't feel like I have to respond.

Ah I see, when somebody arrogantly points out the flaws in your argument, this is your natural defense mechanism kicking in.
I agree Iam was way too hostile towards you, but this reaction of yours makes no sense whatsoever.
You see, aside from his arrogance, he actually DOES make good points worthy of being addressed by you.
Don't get me wrong, he was insulting you, however that does not change the fact that he does present good arguments.
I hope you can see the difference between arguments+insults, and just insults, which is how you are replying to him now, and how you were replying to me in other treads a several minutes ago.

I never cast anything remotely resembling an insult until post 32 and that was from the pure frustration of this individual completely ignoring my posts because he had no answers for them. Then he started the insults. I may have insulted the religion he adheres to but of course that is in no way a personal insult. And I take umbrage at the accusation. I ridiculed the unbelievable story he is attempting to defend with logic and reason, if that insults him then so be it. That is a problem for him and his stories not me.

[aglassdarkly]

Alright, second time through, they cannot plead ignorance, but first mistakes should not have eternal consequences.

Adam and Eve's first mistake caused a curse over the world that wouldn't be eternal, but would cause God to eventually restore things for those who have been faithful to Him. Today, a person's first mistake (sin) will have eternal consequences unless they are forgiven.

To carry on with the golf metaphor, why wouldn't a God give a mulligan to someone who is just beginning to learn the game on his very first round, who is prohibited from looking at the rules and is given a bad caddy?

God provides an ongoing mulligan for anyone who believes that Jesus is Lord. Adam and Eve sinned, but they weren't sentenced to hell for it. The curse was an inclination toward sin, they'd have to work (no more paradise), child bearing would be more painful, etc. Some would say that was a mulligan because the penalty for sin is death... and instead of letting them live full lives, God could have taken 'em out on the spot.