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.

[Jack Stoddart]

…regardless of whether the words translated as [font=Georgia]HELL[/font] in fact signify [the] concept at all. That is what the Church taught for centuries and in most cases still teaches.

• If you notice I am a christian Universalist and do not believe in eternal hell, and I love proving Christians who believe in this lie it is a lie. But most of them are a refuse to debate me

Hi. Yes I'd noticed that but wasn't addressing anyone in particular. Most Christian denominations have taught the doctrine of hell since the reformation. Before that it was very well established if not foundational in both orthodox and Roman catholic teachings and prior to the schism there was sufficient interest in the topic† (although the words Hell or Hel did not exist at such an early date) for a considerable body of artwork to have been developed over the subsequent millennium. By the end of that period the words and the languages they're a part of had emerged.

I would suggest that the words did not exist because the concepts did not exist. Hades may have been translated as Hell but the concepts are different. Observations of volcanic activity combined with knowledge of cave networks—some of which are very extensive and go to considerable depths—would easily produce the phantasmagoria of Hades and as a literary device or something it had its place in Greek mythology. At the same time, however, a word for atheism emerged, "without god" being a description of Greek (or any other) science whether or not the philosophers themselves followed any religious practice. Generally they knew that mythology is literary rather than factual and would able to stage a play set in Hades without suggesting that such a place actually existed. Same as Jack-and-the-Beanstalk in other words. Perhaps some ancient civilisation once built a space elevator and the story has been preserved? But I doubt that.

No-one has ever suggested to me that if I am very naughty a neo-Jack will plant another bean and his ogre will floomph down and eat me. It is suggested, on the other hand, that if I am not covered in the blood of Christ dire ill awaits. There are descriptions of everlasting torment in the Bible. To teach such dogma to children as fact in the absence of evidence and KNOWING the etymology of the words Hades, Hel, Hell [font=Times New Roman]etc.[/font] and what they signify in their respective languages as all clergymen do (it's a part of their training) is a crime in my opinion. No "god" permitting such an outrage is "good" which is about as close to staying on topic as I can manage. I'll read the OP again.....

Yes, that's OK. I'm saying there's a difference between NT theology and what the churches teach in the 21st century. The early church did not teach what is taught today for several reasons.

• 1. The New Testament did not exist
  2. Modern languages did not exist
  3. "Modern" concepts such as wave/particle duality, quantum mechanics, outer space and so on did exist, but were firmly opposed by the early church until it was strong enough to close them down altogether [Justinian 527–565]

By that time the doctrine was sufficiently established for an inferno to be incorporated into the canon. Here is an example of the mental gymnastics required to accommodate these doctrines through the ages.


EDIT
† I am referring to the era of Origen and Eusebius

[Benoni]

[Replying to Jack Stoddart]

I agree with much of what you are saying but all the intellectual understanding will
stop religious men from believing is this heresy of damning trillions of lost souls God never called. I am a spiritual man and professional artist and my writing skills do lack; so please work with me.

Jesus was against religion of his day; He never got up set with sinners it what the Pharisees and Sadducees he was mad at.

Our English word “religion� comes from the Latin “religio� which means “a taboo, a restraint� and bespeaks of a system exercised by the will of man designed to gain favor with God. The word broken down is “re� (return) +�ligare� (to bond with a restraint). Simply stated the word means… RETURN TO BONDAGE

Taboo is a perfect illustration of religion is doing to God’s deep and awesome Word.
Main Entry: 1ta•boo
Variant(s): also ta•bu /t&-'bü, ta-/
Function: adjective
Etymology: Tongan tabu
1 : forbidden to profane use or contact because of what are held to be dangerous supernatural powers
2 a : banned on grounds of morality or taste <the subject is taboo> b : banned as constituting a risk <the area beyond is taboo, still alive with explosives -- Robert Leckie>

This is where the real problem lies, and this is where I usually fight my battles. I see god as a spirit who hides himself and hides his deep hidden Word, and no science or religion will ever be able to open theses deep mysteries unless God totally allows it. The human brain is not wired for God, it is wired to the natural worlds and the spiritual world is totally at odds with the natural world. Religion is a natural approach to seeking God.

Pretty much all I believe from the Bible is 85% contrary to the how religion sees it, I take the very Bible they believing in and showing them things they have never seen. I am not a lone ranger there are thousands of God’s people who believe as I do and deeper.

[Jack Stoddart]

[Replying to post 857 by Benoni]

Yes I see that, in a sense. It would help if you could explain what "spiritual" means and as regards Jesus, before considering what he's supposed to have thought about religious belief systems I would need to have the evidence for his existence presented. The Bible is the claim, it is not evidence. Nevertheless in terms of the original question which is about any god, regardless of whether any actually exist, I think we can say that no decent god would send any decent person to the hell of the churches.

Churches rejecting the dogma relating to hell would not be included in that.

And of course no decent god would do that. But I've never heard a decent god described. Gods who say "boy o boy do I ever love you..." might sound OK but the problem comes with the next ½ of the sentence which is invariably "...I love you so much I'm gonna murder this baby." That is not a good god. Fortunately none of them exist and since they have been both named and defined in quite clear terms it is easy to disprove their existence.

More nebulous entities, either not clearly defined or not defined at all don't command murder and don't have threats made in their names (if they have a name).

The reason why I know that murder is wrong is the same reason I know torture is wrong or that anything else is wrong. God claims simply allow wrongs, often monstrous wrongs such as hell would be if it existed, to be declared just right and good.

Since I have no wish to murder, torture or cast into flames and ogle grief and anguish I do not need any gods, of the type criticised in the quoted excerpt from the first post which I'll put here:

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.

The extent to which the woes of the dark ages are turned back is the extent to which biblical beliefs are turned back and that won't continue unless they are challenged. I think the post quoted there does challenge people's beliefs, that they should be challenged and that the OP was correct to do so.

[Benoni]

[Replying to post 858 by Jack Stoddart]

It is pretty hard to describe who God is to you seeing you are a natural man; but I will try my best in hopes the spirit of truth will make my words alive to you. By the way I believe ultimately in God’s timing all will know Him.

Note: 1 Corinthians 2:14But the natural, nonspiritual man does not accept or welcome or admit into his heart the gifts and teachings and revelations of the Spirit of God, for they are folly (meaningless nonsense) to him; and he is incapable of knowing them [of progressively recognizing, understanding, and becoming better acquainted with them] because they are spiritually discerned and estimated and appreciated.

I believe God’s Word is in the Bible but is the spiritual Word hidden in its pages, I am not a literalist of the Bible.

You mention the word “fire�.

Yes God uses physical things to describe spiritual things and in that case many of the fires in the bible are physical and more often than not there is a hidden spiritual message with in the literal message.

Here is an example of another fire Daniels friend’s thrown in the Fiery Furnace in Babylon. Only their bondages were burn.

Dan 3:23 And these three men, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, fell down bound into the midst of the burning fiery furnace. 24Then Nebuchadnezzar the king was astonished, and rose up in haste, and spake, and said unto his counselors, Did not we cast three men bound into the midst of the fire? They answered and said unto the king, True, O king. 25He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God.

Notice God’s fire did not burned them up but instead burnt up their Babylonian religious bondages. Babylon always speaks of the world run by man be it the financial, political or religious systems. Baby-lon (note spelling (joke) is a golden cup in the lands of the Lord. Jeremiah 51:7 Babylon hath been a golden cup in the Lord's hand, that made all the earth drunken: the nations have drunken of her wine; therefore the nations are mad.

So the Lake of Fire is spiritual, there is a lot more to what I am saying.

By the way hell (hades) and death will be thrown in the Lake of fire

[Jack Stoddart]

[Replying to post 859 by Benoni]

You have still not explained what the word "spiritual" means.

The fire I referred to in post 739 is real fire. The reason I cited the reference was to demonstrate the degree of heartless cruelty perpetrated by God upon innocent and defenceless children and women following the murder of all adult males, for no reason, which are actions of this God according to the source material. Then the whole city was burned. That is actual—not metaphorical—fire.

It is the same "God" as Jesus is supposed to be. No such god is good. Very much the opposite. And this monster is declared to be unchanging. Therefore it remains monstrous today.

..for no reason

The suggested reason is that the Israelites should murder all the women, gouge out all the bellies of pregnant women, murder all the men, murder all the children and babies except from time to time the female children for the purposes of mass rape and then to gloat over those activities for thousands of years attributing the atrocities to "God" SO THAT they could occupy their land. But that is not a valid reason. Even if the story were true, which it isn't, according to their own source material at the time (we are informed) the world would be virtually unpopulated. Vast tracts of land would be available. It would not be necessary to murder anyone.

Buit they did, according to the mythology. And the mythology is a beacon of Hope and Truth? Not around here it isn't. It's a monstrous crime. To wipe out a whole people? To gloat and preen? Nothing could be more repugnant.

And this is the foundation for Jesus. Perhaps you could explain what a "natural man" is. You say I'm one. Where is the beauty I'm missing? What glory can I not see here? How is genocide ever good?

But sich a god would certainly relish hell.

[Benoni]

I thi[Replying to Jack Stoddart]

You have your mind made up so there is not much I can say; just like all the religious people

[Jack Stoddart]

I thi[Replying to Jack Stoddart]

You have your mind made up so there is not much I can say; just like all the religious people

It has not always seemed so certain. I'll take an example from the arts. One day I was playing the piano and combining different styles. In particular modulating between early 20th century atonalism and the pentatonic scale. The particular atonal style has a parallel in fine art: European expressionism [Schoenberg]. I found that what I was improvising required something to link the 2 styles. Then I thought of the harpsichord and how that music is structured and for the first time in my life
.Jumped up
..Walked out the door
...Bought Bach's prelude #1 for the harpsichord
....Sat down and played the actual notes..
..after learning what they were. Rather than playing something similar I was playing the actual thing. It was the same with the Bible. I'd heard all the excuses at Sunday School: "God can't tolerate sin" and stuff but never paid much attention until I read what the Bible actually said. In the case of the New Testament I learned its language so that I could be sure. Just like I learned the notation for early music so that I could understand Bach's music. Perhaps like one might study Hieronymus Bosch in order to interpret Goya and get a handle on Dali or Munch.

And what I found was not the same as what I had been taught. There is no love in God. How can there be goodness where there is no love? To say that as a "natural man" I am ignorant of real love—which MUST mean some version which can be commanded on pain of death and not just my own death but the blasting of my children and which legitmises genocide whether actual or allegorical—is special pleading.

What is special about the spiritual understanding that makes genocide (by or on behalf of God) OK?

[Benoni]

I thi[Replying to Jack Stoddart]

You have your mind made up so there is not much I can say; just like all the religious people

It has not always seemed so certain. I'll take an example from the arts. One day I was playing the piano and combining different styles. In particular modulating between early 20th century atonalism and the pentatonic scale. The particular atonal style has a parallel in fine art: European expressionism [Schoenberg]. I found that what I was improvising required something to link the 2 styles. Then I thought of the harpsichord and how that music is structured and for the first time in my life
.Jumped up
..Walked out the door
...Bought Bach's prelude #1 for the harpsichord
....Sat down and played the actual notes..
..after learning what they were. Rather than playing something similar I was playing the actual thing. It was the same with the Bible. I'd heard all the excuses at Sunday School: "God can't tolerate sin" and stuff but never paid much attention until I read what the Bible actually said. In the case of the New Testament I learned its language so that I could be sure. Just like I learned the notation for early music so that I could understand Bach's music. Perhaps like one might study Hieronymus Bosch in order to interpret Goya and get a handle on Dali or Munch.

And what I found was not the same as what I had been taught. There is no love in God. How can there be goodness where there is no love? To say that as a "natural man" I am ignorant of real love—which MUST mean some version which can be commanded on pain of death and not just my own death but the blasting of my children and which legitmises genocide whether actual or allegorical—is special pleading.

What is special about the spiritual understanding that makes genocide (by or on behalf of God) OK?

I guess the harmony you would rather settle for is a world full of death, sin, murder, rape and genocide with no purpose; then a world where these terrible things are part of a grand plan

As I mentioned I am an artist

I see God as a creator and am creating a perfect creation. To create something an artist does not start with a perfect piece of art; that happens when it is completed

An artist/creator takes whatever it takes to create something out of nothing and God’s creation starts with the entire negative to build something very awesome and amazing.

Human artist may take days, weeks, months or even years to create something amazing.

When God creates something He is not limited by time, space, death/ love, hate/passion, wrath/joy, limitations/infinity and NOR man’s understanding, human will.

The Garden of Eden a place of Paradise was the start point; where we began. I see God as sovereign over all things to included death, suffering and all the negative things we humans have to put up with. But without the negative we humans would only know half of the equation of life.

I do not view God though the blinders of religion, nor am I a literalist when it comes to the Bible. But deep in that Bible are the hidden secret answers to this human mystery.

In the end of God’s creation He will create something fare greater than what happened in Eden

[jeremiah1five]

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.

First, there are no decent people. The thoughts of his heart are only evil continually. Man was created sin-ful. There is only One God. Belief, or faith, is a gift of God. It is from above, not below. God chooses, not man. And God would be quite within His Right as Creator to allow ALL mankind perish under its judgment which is death. Man is still under the penalty of sin. And unless God intervene in a persons life no flesh shall be saved. But God does intervene. Every person in the narrative of Scripture that had a relationship with God in His Covenant was called of God. Man has no free will. Free will in man is an illusion. There is only ONE God. And God does what He will with His creation. And He is completely Just, and Righteous, and Holy in the discharge of His will towards man. And no one can say to God, "Why have you made me thus?"

God is on His throne and all is right with the "world."

[Benoni]

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.

First, there are no decent people. The thoughts of his heart are only evil continually. Man was created sin-ful.

This is true, but this is not man's doing; it was God who wanted man to error.

There is only One God. Belief, or faith, is a gift of God. It is from above, not below. God chooses, not man. And God would be quite within His Right as Creator to allow ALL mankind perish under its judgment which is death.

Death to ws God's plan; without death there is no ned for a savior to reverse the curse of death.
1 Corinthians 15:22-24

22For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
23But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.


Man is still under the penalty of sin. And unless God intervene in a persons life no flesh shall be saved.
Al flesh shal be saved
ax
Luke 3: 6 (Amp) And all mankind shall see (behold and [a]understand and at last acknowledge) the salvation of God (the deliverance from eternal death decreed by God).

But God does intervene.

What do you mean God does not intervene?

Every person in the narrative of Scripture that had a relationship with God in His Covenant was called of God.

Yes for a purpose so they wil be used to save al the remaining people God never caled