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.

[onewithhim]

The scriptures are full of what conditions on the Earth will be like when the Messiah begins his reign. (One such scripture is Isaiah 11:1-10. A person who is familiar with the Bible knows that "a twig out of the stump of Jesse" is referring to the Messiah, who is a descendant of David, the son of Jesse.)

It is annoying that a prophet uses figures and absurdities to scatter his truths. Instead of saying directly that Jesus would, by a sort of trick of genealogy, be descended from David he talks of stems and branches. But that's okay.

What seems ridiculous in the verses you call our attention to is the following:
Forget wolves lying down with lambs and lions eating straw with oxen, what are we to make of " the weaned child shall put his hand on the cockatrice' den. "
The cockatrice is a fabulous monster with the tail of a dragon. Was Isaiah drunk when he made these predictions?

Why should people pay attention to this when one needs half a ton of generosity - not to say ingenuity - to place any serious meaning to it?

You are, sadly, not getting the truth of the matter that the Bible writers weren't using this antiquated English from the 1600's. They wrote in Hebrew and Greek! Modern translators render that verse differently, because we would never use "cockatrice" to mean what Isaiah was referring to, and that was a "viper." Why get incensed because of translators' use of the King's English from 1611?

[marco]

You are, sadly, not getting the truth of the matter that the Bible writers weren't using this antiquated English from the 1600's. They wrote in Hebrew and Greek! Modern translators render that verse differently, because we would never use "cockatrice" to mean what Isaiah was referring to, and that was a "viper." Why get incensed because of translators' use of the King's English from 1611?

You are, sadly, under the impression that translators in the 17th century were stupid when some of our best translations of early literature come from that period. James, being a king, had access to the best experts. When you do a translation there are usually many alternative words for any in the original. The meaning of the passage is easy to follow: there will be a period when animosities cease. It is hardly an original thought. The ancients believed that such an idyll existed under the God Saturn:
Tibullus writes: Quam bene vivebant Saturno rege, priusquam tellus in magnas vias patefacta est...if I recall correctly. (How well they lived when Saturn was king, before the earth was opened up into big highways). It hardly needs an unsophisticated "prophet" to give us an imaginative description of a wonderland. So my quarrel is not about the translation of viper - would that the Bible possessed only that triviality over which to argue - but about the utter stupidity that Isaiah comes out with, stupidity that even the most inspired translator will not overcome.

Incidentally, you place remarkable faith in the people who have given you their rendering of God's word. It would be easy to mistake the trust one places in humans for trust in divinity.

[onewithhim]

[Replying to post 1116 by marco]

So be it.

[Erexsaur]

[Replying to marco]

Hi Everyone,

Please forgive me for being late as I happen to run across this leg.

May I please help to clarify the issue of interpretation and implied meaning of words and phrases in the Bible?

What do we do with what Jesus said to the disciples; “He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him (St. John 6:56).�

From this do we conclude that all that follow Jesus are cannibals? Many disciples left Jesus because of this. Does it make the Bible appear unreliable? What do we infer from this story?

Earl

[marco]

May I please help to clarify the issue of interpretation and implied meaning of words and phrases in the Bible?
What do we do with what Jesus said to the disciples; “He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him (St. John 6:56).�
From this do we conclude that all that follow Jesus are cannibals? Many disciples left Jesus because of this. Does it make the Bible appear unreliable? What do we infer from this story?

I'm not sure how clarification is presented by asking questions. The context of the odd statement helps a little; Jesus is the bread of life, sent from heaven. People who take in his message have eternal life.
One wonders why he needed to use such a convoluted metaphor. There are surely easier, unambiguous ways to explain his point. Nor does it add clarity to dissect the original words and extract some pleasing meaning, for obviously people who were listening to the original walked off in disgust. Therefore the literal meaning was certainly one that could have been taken. The Romans accused Christians of cannibalism.

At the last supper he pronounced the words that for Catholics transform the host into Christ's actual body and blood. Hoc est enim corpus meum (which gave us the word hocus-pocus) turn a priest into a miracle worker.

You ask what we can deduce from the words of Christ. He expected too much from ordinary folk; in some ways he was over-fond of figurative speech; he missed chances to explain things clearly; he's a disappointment as a man-god. Would that do?

If all this stirs up to clarity, I shall be mildly surprised.

In any case we have motored miles away from a good God sending folk to hell, which rides two horses: Is God actually GOOD and Does he really send folk to HELL?

[onewithhim]

May I please help to clarify the issue of interpretation and implied meaning of words and phrases in the Bible?
What do we do with what Jesus said to the disciples; “He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him (St. John 6:56).�
From this do we conclude that all that follow Jesus are cannibals? Many disciples left Jesus because of this. Does it make the Bible appear unreliable? What do we infer from this story?

I'm not sure how clarification is presented by asking questions. The context of the odd statement helps a little; Jesus is the bread of life, sent from heaven. People who take in his message have eternal life.
One wonders why he needed to use such a convoluted metaphor. There are surely easier, unambiguous ways to explain his point. Nor does it add clarity to dissect the original words and extract some pleasing meaning, for obviously people who were listening to the original walked off in disgust. Therefore the literal meaning was certainly one that could have been taken. The Romans accused Christians of cannibalism.

At the last supper he pronounced the words that for Catholics transform the host into Christ's actual body and blood. Hoc est enim corpus meum (which gave us the word hocus-pocus) turn a priest into a miracle worker.

You ask what we can deduce from the words of Christ. He expected too much from ordinary folk; in some ways he was over-fond of figurative speech; he missed chances to explain things clearly; he's a disappointment as a man-god. Would that do?

If all this stirs up to clarity, I shall be mildly surprised.

In any case we have motored miles away from a good God sending folk to hell, which rides two horses: Is God actually GOOD and Does he really send folk to HELL?

Silly me. I thought that the point was well made that there is no fiery hell, and God is such a good Person that He wouldn't send anyone to such a place. Doesn't ANYONE agree with that?

[ttruscott]

Silly me. I thought that the point was well made that there is no fiery hell, and God is such a good Person that He wouldn't send anyone to such a place. Doesn't ANYONE agree with that?

GOD's goodness has nothing to do with keeping hell free of people... IF there is no people in hell then there is no hell and there is absolutely no reason to imply there is... are you pretending you never read my 5 reasons hell is necessary IF ?? which I think made my point very well indeed. Good enough you ignored it anyway... :sigh:

The fact you made your point will is not the standard of truth here or in my life....

[marco]

Silly me. I thought that the point was well made that there is no fiery hell, and God is such a good Person that He wouldn't send anyone to such a place. Doesn't ANYONE agree with that?

You're not being silly in thinking the point was well made. That is your view. Others think it wasn't well made. That is theirs.
While I would pay no attention to alternative definitions of hell that delve deeply into the resources of psychology, I would be sympathetic to a very simple reading of the OP which allows only the answer: "No." Even an atheist would accept that a GOOD character, fictional or otherwise, wouldn't act with absolute savagery. So the placement of "good" before the deity's name engineers a negative.

Would God send an atheist to hell? Yahweh would, and pretty speedily too. Deuteronomy would support that view.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 1122 by marco]

I would agree, everyone is entitled to their own personal view. Personally I do not believe a God of love would torture people eternally, others are quite comfortable with this view. To each their own worldview.

JEHOVAH'S WITNESS

[Clownboat]

[Replying to post 1122 by marco]

I would agree, everyone is entitled to their own personal view. Personally I do not believe a God of love would torture people eternally, others are quite comfortable with this view. To each their own worldview.

JEHOVAH'S WITNESS

Question for ya.
I know you said, 'to each their own', but if you are a Witness, don't you conform to 'their' (The Jehovah's Witness) world view?

Is it a persons world view that prevents them from playing organized sports, or celebrating holidays and such, or from associating with people that are not Jehovah's Witnesses themselves?

Is it your world view that would stop you from saying "Hi" to someone that has been disfellowshipped? Not even saying 'Hi' seems like an odd view IMO.
Is it your world view that tells you that Jesus was the Archangel Michael? Why did it take the Witnesses for this world view to come to light?
Is the 144,000 part of your world view, or the church?
How about your views on blood and transfusions? Are they your own?
(These may not apply to you, and if so, just say so and consider the questions retracted).
Of course, a Witness could point to the scriptures that the Watch Tower uses to justify these 'world views', but then I'm left to wonder, if they are true claims, why were they missed for so long until the Witnesses came about and got them right?

I guess I'm just trying to figure out how genuine the 'to each their own world view' claim really is by trying to gauge if you have arrived at your conclusions on your own, or if you just have the world view of the religion you follow (which is what I would expect and which would make the 'to each their own' claim quite ironic).