I am an atheist who cannot believe. Will I go to hell?

[The Transcended Omniverse]

I hear many people say that you go to hell if you don't believe in Christianity. That includes other religions out there who would make the same claim. I cannot make myself believe no matter what and I have researched all I could into everything I could possibly read into, and I just have to remain undecided. My undecided mindset is the result of a truly honest open mind and open heart. Will I go to hell since I could not believe? Furthermore, do I need to dedicate and serve my life to a God who I don't even believe in the first place in order to be saved from hell?

Please take note that I have tried everything I possibly could and I still cannot believe. There are many other people out there who have tried as well with a truly open mind and heart (for many years, btw) and they cannot believe either. As for those who did believe who claimed they finally realized the truth, I have no way of knowing if they did not keep an open mind like me and that it was their close mindedness that lead them to believe or not.

As for me, there is no way to convince me and I am officially done trying to seek out the Lord. I have no further interest and I am not going to waste my life for what might be years and years over something that might not even be true in the first place. So, why am I here then if nothing can convince me? It is because I am simply wondering if I would go to hell anyway (providing Christianity or other religions are real) over a disbelief that I was genuine and honest about.

I am a kind and respectful person, but I only live for my own good feelings. I have no interest in helping others. So, is that a good enough heart that would earn my way into heaven or not?

[OnceConvinced]

Peace to you OC,

[Replying to post 17 by OnceConvinced]

I was always taught that if what you hear doesn’t line up with the bible then it’s not from Christ. That the bible is the blueprint and anything that contradicts it must be wrong.

Then someone taught you wrong.

In your opinion.

What you were taught is the opinion.

Yet more opinion from you.

It did not come from Christ because Christ does not teach it. And nowhere in the bible will you find Him teaching such a thing.

Who says these words aren't from Christ directly?

Isn't it a little hypocritical of you to insist that Christ tells you things directly, things that aren't in the bible, but when someone else does it, then it becomes just their opinion?

You yourself claim that you hear things from Christ all the time, but yet those things are often not in the bible either. Should we just straight out reject those things that you claim Jesus said to you?

It doesn't even make sense, OC.

You're saying it makes no sense to take the gospels seriously? I would agree with you now. Not as a Christian though.

I actually said that what you were taught makes no sense.

I could understand it might not make sense to someone who believes they hear from Jesus directly and takes thoughts in their head as being more authoritative than the bible. However for one who sees the bible as God's word it makes perfect sense.

I put all stock (and faith) in Him.

Yes, you tell us that the thoughts in your head come from Jesus. They trump everything else.

Listening to that voice in our head can be a dangerous one. It's how cults spring up, when people stray from God's word.

I never mentioned a voice 'in my head'.

Then what do you call it?

Do you not tell us that Jesus communicates with you? How does he do it if not a voice or a thought in your head?

While I can understand an atheists' mind being blown at the thought that Christ speaks

You misunderstand. My mind is not blown at the thought that Christ might communicate with someone. My mind is blown by the fact that a person actually BELIEVES that Christ is communicating with them.

Because we aren't told to listen to people who say that "Jesus" or Christ or God talks to them.

We are told to listen to Christ.

So why do you come here and preach then? If we are told to listen to Christ, why on earth do you think we should listen to you?

Perhaps you should stop insisting that the things you tell us are words from Christ himself?

So if someone comes along and says that Christ told them something... then hold that up up to the Light that is Christ. But YOU (general you, for those who do follow Christ and listen to Him) listen to and follow Christ.

You are always telling us that Christ has said things to you. When I hold some things you say up to the light I see that what you are saying cannot possibly be from Christ. So often what you say violates what I know to be true in reality. So often what you tell us is from Christ is clearly your own opinion.

However I would not put stake in voices in my head either as those voices are simply your own.

To use your own words from earlier, this is your opinion.

When what you say violates what I know to be true in reality then it is no longer just my opinion.

But I must ask YOU a question. How exactly did you expect to receive an answer (from Christ or God) when you were calling out?

Sorry I'm not sure I understand your question.

I didn't just call out. I also listened and hoped for some kind of response. Waited for the holy spirit to touch me, as I was convinced he had many times in the past.

My Lord, however, has never spoken anything to me except truth.

So you claim. I however don't believe you.

Never led me anywhere except into truth. So I have no reason to doubt Him. And every reason to remain in Him.

So you claim. However I don't believe you. Humans tend to block out the times where mistakes are made and that voice from Jesus is wrong.

As a Christian I would have said that the voice of Jesus in your head may not be Jesus at all. You have to be very careful, which is why we use the bible as the benchmark.

You are indicating to me that you might not have listened even if He had spoken to you.

I would have considered it carefully and figured out whether it was just me or whether it was Jesus... or Satan. However I got nothing. Not even my own voice or Satan's voice.

You have to realise I was desperate for something. I got nothing. Absolute zip. If there had been anything at all I would have considered it seriously.

If you have never been in my situation, you would never know what I went through.

And just because one needs to be careful, does not mean that one shuts one's own ears and hands over the reins to someone or something other than Christ. Where is the faith in that?

Agreed, But that is not what someone desperate to hear from someone does.

Now of course I will say that going with the voice in your head is the better thing to do, because at least then you get a reliable source of information: Yourself. You get to take advantage of many years of experience and wisdom. MODERN wisdom, rather than the ancient wisdom of the bible.

Wisdom is wisdom. Indeed Christ is wisdom. But it is a fallacy to think that we are more wise than ancient people. I think that is arrogant of us... although I also think that every generation thinks this, lol. Perhaps because some confuse wisdom with technological or scientific advances.

It's not about that. It's about understanding the way things work. The ancient people of the bible seemed to be clueless about so much. They were completely wrong about many things. eg we know that illnesses and natural disasters are not punishments from gods. Mental illnesses are not a result of demon possession.

Christ was standing in the flesh directly in front of people when He said that, and still they did not recognize Him,

Maybe he just wasn't that convincing? That's very telling.

You may have avoided the point.

No I haven't.

They were looking to the scriptures and refusing to come to the only One who could give them what they were looking for.

If Jesus was simply a charlatan then he was not the one who could give them what they were looking for. Perhaps they saw him as a charlatan and rightfully so?

That book does not say of itself that it IS the benchmark for truth. That book says that Christ is the Truth. Does that not make Christ the benchmark for Truth? So why did the people who taught you come up with the teaching that the bible is the benchmark for truth?

Because it had never let them down. Because it always proved to be accurate for them. Just like you claim Jesus has never let you down. No different to you, Tam, its just that they go by the book, while you go by the voice in your head.

That is not even in line with what Christ is written to have taught.

So let's go with what Tam says Christ said instead. Yeah, there's a trustworthy method..

[OnceConvinced]

To the OP:
If you don't believe that why would you think you would go to hell? hell exists only in the minds of those who take the Bible seriously.
On the other hand, if you are worried about going to hell, perhaps you secretly believe?

Those that take the Bible seriously will do research and find out just how true the ideas that the churches have about hell-fire are. It didn't take forever for me to see that the Bible does NOT teach a fiery hell. That is---the Bible in the original Hebrew and Greek. It is interesting to compare versions, too, and see how and why the different versions came up with their varying renderings.

I must say, if I were still a Christian I would be right on board with what you are saying about the wailing and the gnashing of teeth being about anger and frustration rather than pain. I would be only to happy to take unrelated scriptures to create a different picture of it. I would be right on board with the idea that Hell is not a place of fiery death.

Even as I matured as a Christian I began to seriously look at other beliefs about hell. I really wanted to believe that God was a lovely god and that he would never put any of his loved ones through agonising fiery death. I actually was starting to believe that Hell was simply permanent death, not a fiery death like I had been taught. One thing I flat out rejected was the notion that Hell was a place of eternal torment. That just goes way too much against scripture and makes God looks like a sadist.

Hell being just death, was something I really hoped was the case. I really hoped that the fiery hell was a misrepresentation. I would have loved to quote those scriptures you quoted from other parts of the bible which try to turn the literal interpretation of the Parable of the Tares into something more benign. I would have been slapping you on the back, even though you were a JW. Anything to believe that God was not a god who would burn his loved ones to death was something I wanted to grab a hold of.

Now, though, I am not motivated to try to make God look good. That ship has sailed. It's hard not to see the literal interpretation Jesus gave for the Tares parable as anything but a fiery death.

But hey, I'm not trying to keep that debate going. Just want to let you know that if I were a Christian I would be taking your side and happy to do so.

[ttruscott]

One thing I flat out rejected was the notion that Hell was a place of eternal torment. That just goes way too much against scripture and makes God looks like a sadist.

Sure and I did that myself for years as a nominal Christian. Bu I came to understand that in a certain case, hell is an absolute theological necessity and since the Bible hints that this special circumstance is just as plausible as other interpretations, I now hold it as a distinct probability.

IF GOD created us as eternally existent spirits and
IF some of HIS creation chose a sin that makes them eternally evil in nature and
IF a characteristic of evil is found in the phrase, a little leaven leavens the whole lump, meaning that a little evil corrupts the whole person, country, world and reality,
THEN the necessity to remove those who are eternally sinful from our reality forever so their evil cannot continue to contaminate and corrupt our reality by banishing them to the outer darkness is absolute.

Especially since the heavenly telepathic link between everyone and their GOD instituted by the marriage of the Lamb, could spread any taint of corruption in the blink of an eye.

[OnceConvinced]

One thing I flat out rejected was the notion that Hell was a place of eternal torment. That just goes way too much against scripture and makes God looks like a sadist.

Sure and I did that myself for years as a nominal Christian. Bu I came to understand that in a certain case, hell is an absolute theological necessity and since the Bible hints that this special circumstance is just as plausible as other interpretations, I now hold it as a distinct probability.

IF GOD created us as eternally existent spirits and
IF some of HIS creation chose a sin that makes them eternally evil in nature and
IF a characteristic of evil is found in the phrase, a little leaven leavens the whole lump, meaning that a little evil corrupts the whole person, country, world and reality,
THEN the necessity to remove those who are eternally sinful from our reality forever so their evil cannot continue to contaminate and corrupt our reality by banishing them to the outer darkness is absolute.

Especially since the heavenly telepathic link between everyone and their GOD instituted by the marriage of the Lamb, could spread any taint of corruption in the blink of an eye.

I would think that if God can create an eternally existent spirit he can obliterate that same eternally existent spirit and do it in a way that is not agonising. If it's not possible for him to do it due to the fact that it is immortal and it can't be obliterated, then he could somehow disable it in a way that it not going to cause it to suffer.

However, if you are going to create something immortal, something that can't be obliterated, then that is rather short-sighted of you. Either that or rather malevolent. If you know that you are creating something eternal that is going to do evil, one should probably avoid doing so. Even if God could not see into the future, he would surely have considered the possibility of his creations becoming corrupted and thus adjust his design in some way. Some way that makes it possible to eradicate the spirit if it becomes corrupted. Or some way to heal that spirit. A way that does not cause suffering to any other creature.

[onewithhim]

May you all have peace!

He said in prayer: "Sanctify them [the disciples] in the truth; Your word is truth." (John 17:17, NASB)

You think He was referring to the OT?

Then would it not have been written:

Sanctify them in the truth; the scriptures are the truth?

He did not say that though, because that is not true.

You are inserting OT here (or Scripture, because no one would have said OT at that time), but that is not what is written.

Yes Jesus was referring to the "Old Testament"---the Hebrew Scriptures that made up the Bible as Jesus knew it. That is what he was referring to when he said to God, "Your Word is truth." Christ's disciples would have been "sanctified" by being in line with everything that was written in the Hebrew Scriptures. We can't just toss aside the Hebrew Scriptures as superfluous. They are important for us to know. We get the full meaning of what Jesus gave up his human life for and a glimpse of workings in the spirit realm. We come to know who God is by reading the Hebrew Scriptures. Without them the Christian Greek Scriptures wouldn't make a whole lot of sense. I am mystified as to why you keep berating the Bible---God's Word.

You will accept your Lord's messages even if they contradict the Bible. That would give me a huge heads-up right away that the "Lord" wasn't working for God.


.

[ttruscott]

I would think that if God can create an eternally existent spirit he can obliterate that same eternally existent spirit and do it in a way that is not agonising. If it's not possible for him to do it due to the fact that it is immortal and it can't be obliterated, then he could somehow disable it in a way that it not going to cause it to suffer.

Interesting notion...

However, if you are going to create something immortal, something that can't be obliterated, then that is rather short-sighted of you. Either that or rather malevolent.

3d option: I wonder if the need for our immortality didn't have something to do with heaven: If we were not created immortal and indestructible then sooner or later heaven would empty due to mortality by definition and HE would have to start all over again. Why lose all those loving relationships after so long because of the lack of foresight to make them immortal?

If you know that you are creating something eternal that is going to do evil, one should probably avoid doing so.

I of course contend that GOD only knew what HE created by HIS decrees of creation, Acts 15:18, and since HE did not decree the results of our free will decisions, HE did not know what they were until we chose them.

If this is true then it is implied that everyone might have chosen to reject HIM and become evil and doomed or no one. It seems to me that the balance of favour was that if even one person chose to accept HIM as their GOD and to marry HIM in the heavenly state, that it was worth the loss of the billions of others who rejected HIM.

Even if God could not see into the future, he would surely have considered the possibility of his creations becoming corrupted and thus adjust his design in some way.

Of course and that is why Christ is said to be the lamb chosen before the foundation / creation of the world: 1 Peter 1:20 He was chosen before the creation of the world... Christ's only business was to be the answer to the sin of any elect who chose to become evil. By the Father choosing Him before creation, it proves HE was indeed adjusting HIS design to answer evil before it was chosen and came into existence, which made it HIS design rather than an adjustment.

A way that does not cause suffering to any other creature.

Frankly, I just assume this is what happened - the fact that I don't know what the problems were nor the alternatives but I do know HIS loving righteousness, lets me rest in HIM.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 55 by onewithhim]


[center]

In his mind, maybe even Jim Jones thought he was working for "God"... who knows, right?[/center]

You will accept your Lord's messages even if they contradict the Bible. That would give me a huge heads-up right away that the "Lord" wasn't working for God.

So, what are you thinking here?
Jesus would be like a David Koresh or a Jim Jones?

Just another in a long line of death cult leaders claiming to work for the Big Guy up above?

[tam]

[Replying to post 49 by Blastcat]

In this forum, claims are to be substantiated by SOME kind of evidence.

Fair point, Blastcat (peace to you).


Christ said that His sheep would hear His voice.

My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me." John 10:27

"I am the good shepherd, and I know My own and My own know Me, even as the Father knows Me and I know the Father; and I lay down My life for the sheep. "I have other sheep, which are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will hear My voice; and they will become one flock with one shepherd.…" John 10:14-16



Christ is shown to be speaking after His death and resurrection; and His sheep are shown to be listening to His voice:

The Spirit told Philip, "Go to that chariot and stay near it." Acts 8:29

**
In Damascus, there was a disciple named Ananias. The Lord called to him in a vision, "Ananias!"

"Yes Lord," he answered.

The Lord told him, "Go to the house of Judas on Straight Street and ask for a man from Tarsus named Saul, for he is praying. In a vision he has seen a man named Ananias come and place his hands on him to restore his sight." (Acts 9:10,11... and it continues)

**
There is Peter's vision telling him that he should eat foods that he considered unclean, and then after his vision:

While Peter was still thinking about the vision, the Spirit (Christ) said to him, "Simon, three men are looking for you. So get up and go downstairs. Do not hesitate to go with them, for I (Christ) have sent them." (Acts 10: 9-20)

**

There are of course multiple examples from Paul. The entire book of Revelation is from Christ to John.

Christ also said,

Those I love, I rebuke and discipline. Therefore be earnest and repent. Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in and dine with him, and he with Me. Rev 3:19,20




There is the warning against hardening our hearts if we hear His voice.

As has just been said: "Today, if you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts as you did in the rebellion." Hebrews 3:15


Why would we have a warning against hardening our hearts if we hear His voice, if we cannot hear His voice? If He does not speak?


**

So Christ said that His sheep would hear His voice. We have examples from what is written of His sheep hearing His voice. I am one of His sheep. (all Christians would be His sheep)


My testimony is not baseless. It is not proof. But there is 'some kind of evidence' for it. In this sub-forum especially.


(Not that this means that anyone should take my word for anything. Or that anyone should listen to ME. I am not the Truth. Christ is the Truth. We should hold all things up against the light that is Christ, and listen to Him.)





Peace to you and to your household,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[tam]

Peace to you OC!

It did not come from Christ because Christ does not teach it. And nowhere in the bible will you find Him teaching such a thing.

Who says these words aren't from Christ directly?

Is someone saying that they are?

Isn't it a little hypocritical of you to insist that Christ tells you things directly, things that aren't in the bible, but when someone else does it, then it becomes just their opinion?

It could be hypocritical, yes. If someone said Christ told them something directly, but that something was not in the bible, then I would have to test that inspired expression... and not just arbitrarily state that it was their opinion simply because it was not in the bible. I would test it against Christ, against what is written (beginning with Christ), and against love. If it was not against (contradicting) any of these... even if I had not yet heard the same thing myself... then I would not make a statement about it one way or the other and would instead apply the saying: "he who is not against you is for you.'


So... did someone else do that?

So if someone comes along and says that Christ told them something... then hold that up up to the Light that is Christ. But YOU (general you, for those who do follow Christ and listen to Him) listen to and follow Christ.

You are always telling us that Christ has said things to you. When I hold some things you say up to the light I see that what you are saying cannot possibly be from Christ.

OC, can you give me an example of something that you have held up to the light (that is Christ), that has shown you that what I shared cannot possibly be from Him?

But I must ask YOU a question. How exactly did you expect to receive an answer (from Christ or God) when you were calling out?

Sorry I'm not sure I understand your question.

I didn't just call out. I also listened and hoped for some kind of response. Waited for the holy spirit to touch me, as I was convinced he had many times in the past.

Sorry. I meant what kind of response did you expect to receive?


I can think of all sorts of reasons why someone may not have heard - even if Christ is speaking to them. But I am only suggesting some of these to you. I am not judging you in the least or questioning your sincerity. We have had enough conversations that I can hear the sincerity in your words when you speak of your anguish.


But not hearing His voice does not mean that He does not - or even did not - speak. There are many reasons that we are given that we might not (yet) hear His voice.

One being that many might be listening to a different voice over His voice; such as the voice of Babylon the Great. She cries out too... calling people into her (and into her daughters)... and her voice is loud and boisterous.

Now of course I will say that going with the voice in your head is the better thing to do, because at least then you get a reliable source of information: Yourself. You get to take advantage of many years of experience and wisdom. MODERN wisdom, rather than the ancient wisdom of the bible.

Wisdom is wisdom. Indeed Christ is wisdom. But it is a fallacy to think that we are more wise than ancient people. I think that is arrogant of us... although I also think that every generation thinks this, lol. Perhaps because some confuse wisdom with technological or scientific advances.

It's not about that. It's about understanding the way things work. The ancient people of the bible seemed to be clueless about so much. They were completely wrong about many things. eg we know that illnesses and natural disasters are not punishments from gods. Mental illnesses are not a result of demon possession.

Christ also said that illness was not punishment from God.

That book does not say of itself that it IS the benchmark for truth. That book says that Christ is the Truth. Does that not make Christ the benchmark for Truth? So why did the people who taught you come up with the teaching that the bible is the benchmark for truth?

Because it had never let them down. Because it always proved to be accurate for them. Just like you claim Jesus has never let you down. No different to you, Tam, its just that they go by the book, while you go by the voice in your head.

But even that book says that Christ is the Truth. Shouldn't that make Christ the benchmark for truth?

That is not even in line with what Christ is written to have taught.

So let's go with what Tam says Christ said instead. Yeah, there's a trustworthy method..

Perhaps re-read what I said.

"That is not even in line with what Christ is written to have taught."

That has nothing to do with what 'tam says Christ said'.



Peace again to you, and to your household,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[onewithhim]

[Replying to post 55 by onewithhim]


[center]

In his mind, maybe even Jim Jones thought he was working for "God"... who knows, right?[/center]

You will accept your Lord's messages even if they contradict the Bible. That would give me a huge heads-up right away that the "Lord" wasn't working for God.

So, what are you thinking here?
Jesus would be like a David Koresh or a Jim Jones?

Just another in a long line of death cult leaders claiming to work for the Big Guy up above?

No, if you'll re-read what I wrote you will see that I refer to tam's "Lord." (Not Jesus/ Yeshua.)


.