Question for Christians who believe that non-Christians go to hell

StormWarrior

If you genuinely believe that non-christians go to hell, how do you feel about this, considering that some of your friends will probably go there? Also, if you have a non-Christian child, how do you feel about them going there, and do you feel that it's unfair of God? This is a genuinely serious question, I've been wondering about this for a while. Do you feel that you will enjoy your time in heaven knowing that others are suffering?

rovert

I want PapaRatzinger's opinion on this.

antiskeptic

StormWarrior wrote: »

If you genuinely believe that non-christians go to hell, how do you feel about this, considering that some of your friends will probably go there? Also, if you have a non-Christian child, how do you feel about them going there, and do you feel that it's unfair of God? This is a genuinely serious question, I've been wondering about this for a while. Do you feel that you will enjoy your time in heaven knowing that others are suffering?

Hi there...

This problem (or objection if you prefer) is best dealt with by splitting it up into componants.

Componant 1: Choice

(Probably) most of Christianity considers Hell to be the destination of those who choose it. Leaving aside the issue of how a person, who doesn't believe in God's existance, chooses Hell, you could see how the problem is reduced somewhat. Whilst sorrowful, you might expect that I would at least respect their decision to be where they now are. That's what they wanted afterall.

Componant 2: The Personhood of the person in Hell.

The person in Hell is there because they effectively reject association with the things of God. Which means they reject association with the image of God in which they were made. And so that image is removed from them

Which means you wouldn't recognise you own mother if you saw her in her Hell-state. All that is attractive, joyful, loving, courageous, positive ... about your mother will be gone. All that will be left is her without that which makes her good. Her selfishness, her spitefulness, her meaness ... is all you would see.

Would you miss such a creature?



* It should be noted that what I think constitutes a Christian and what you think constitutes a Christian might differ but I'm leaving that aside.

peccavi

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church [ http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/ccc_toc.htm ]:

"Outside the Church there is no salvation"

846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.

847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.

848 "Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men."

And also, what creature said above about loving the souls in hell. All that is good, beautiful, and true is gone. Terrifying.

Joey the lips

As a christian i dont belive non christians will go to hell. In fact I believe this is purgatory and we are all being judged. I believe regardless of your faith once you live to its principles and do no harm we will all go to "hevan"

StormWarrior

Thanks for the answer. However, I do not understand why Christians think that the non-Christian chooses hell. The majority of us, we simply don't believe that the Christian god exists, or that the biblical tales are true. I, and I'm sure the majority of other people, certainly don't choose to go to hell, we just don't believe that it exists. We don't make the decision: "I have a choice between heaven and hell, and I choose hell." If it turned out that my lack of faith is wrong (although I really don't think that it is) and the Christian god is real and heaven and hell exist, then of course I would prefer heaven. But I've thought about it long and hard, studied the evidence and actually did Christian theology A-Level and studied religion at university, was sent to Sunday school for years as a child, and after all that I just genuinely do not believe that Christianity can possibly be true. If it turns out I'm wrong, that doesn't mean that I have chosen hell. I don't see how we can leave aside the issue of someone who deosn't believe in God's existence. And what about people who follow Islam or some other religion in good faith? They haven't chosen hell, they've tried everything they can to make sure that they get into heaven.

It says on many webpages that Christians believe that God allows souls to go to hell because he doesn't want to interfere with their free choice of rejecting him. But even if they believe and have rejected him, what if they don't choose hell either? What if they choose non-existence, or a non-stop eternal party or orgy? Isn't God interfering with their free will by stopping this from happening?

About component 2 - does it actually say this in the bible, that a person's good traits are removed from them in hell? Even if it does, the fact remains that your mother's consciousness still exists, and that consciousness will be in torment. Your mother is still suffering even if her personality has somehow been changed. Would you really enjoy heaven knowing that?


By Christian I just mean anyone who believes in the whole jesus thing.

Soul Winner

In order to give an adequate answer to this we must first define our terms.

1) What is a Christian?
2) What is hell?

1) A Christian is somebody who (rightly or wrongly) genuinely believes that Jesus was the divine and ultimate revelation of God on the stage of history. And that He actually rose from the dead in vindication of His divine claims.

2) Hell is an actual real place where everybody is actually on their way to because of their sins.

If Jesus was in reality the ultimate revelation of God on the stage of history then it would be wise to heed what He says about hell wouldn't it? I think most people would concede that point even if they didn't actually believe in Jesus.

So if as a Christian you believe you have gotten the right message, that Jesus was God and hell is a real place, and that the only way to escape it is to trust in God and what He wrought through the substitution sacrificial death of His son for you to save you from your impending doom, then to not preach this message to your loved ones would mean that you don't really care about them after all. But if after you have preached it to them and they don't accept their need of what Jesus actually provided in His death. Then what else can the Christian do?

Well he could employ one of the following tactics.

1) Make the case for the truthfulness of his faith by showing forth the case of the resurrection.

2) Torture his family until they submit themselves to the will of God.

3) Say nothing at all to them and just let them go on their merry way.

If the family end up in hell after having this way out preached to them but failed to grab hold of it, then they have only got themselves to blame because the way to escape was preached to them and they failed to lay hold on it and get saved. And if they are genuinely good people who don't think they deserve hell then good for them, but the Bible states that there are none that does good, no not one. If the God of the Bible is real then He says that unless we are given over to Him in trust/faith we are none of His, and if we stand before Him on the day of judgment in that state then He will say depart from me I never knew you. If He is not the be all and end all for you in this life then you will not have any part in His Kingdom on that day. The Christian simply does not want this to happen to anybody, they want everyone saved.

And if all this ends up to be a load of BS, then there will be nothing to worry about will there? But if you end up being wrong about your conclusions that all this Jesus stuff is a crock of **** then it will simply prove that what you based your life on was a lie. If hell exists then it doesn't really matter whether anyone believes in it or not, it is fact independent of anyone's belief. And if you think God is being unfair in creating such a place then you have substitute your judgment for God's and put yourself in His place. And if you profess that we should not to put any faith in this unfair God's judgment calls, why should we put it in yours?

StormWarrior

But why keep those souls in hell? Why not destroy them or just send them wherever they want? And why not give absolute irrefutable proof of God's existence? I mean, if god was real and those who didn't believe were going to hell, why wouldn't a loving god make absolutely sure that there was real evidence of his existence so that people could make a genuinely informed choice?

monosharp

StormWarrior wrote: »

But why keep those souls in hell? Why not destroy them or just send them wherever they want? And why not give absolute irrefutable proof of God's existence? I mean, if god was real and those who didn't believe were going to hell, why wouldn't a loving god make absolutely sure that there was real evidence of his existence so that people could make a genuinely informed choice?

Because that would be no fun.

Soul Winner

StormWarrior wrote: »

But why keep those souls in hell? Why not destroy them or just send them wherever they want? And why not give absolute irrefutable proof of God's existence? I mean, if god was real and those who didn't believe were going to hell, why wouldn't a loving god make absolutely sure that there was real evidence of his existence so that people could make a genuinely informed choice?

Look its been admitted on this forum many times that even if God did do something like this it wouldn't make most of you turn to Him anyway. The central point in the Christian faith is the resurrection of Jesus. If that didn't happen then its all cr*p anyway. If it did, then its the central point of history. Plus it is the only sign Jesus said would be given to the world, the sign of Jonah. If you don't accept that sign then you'll never accept anything. In short, if God gave you something natural that you would accept then you'd want something supernatural to prove His supernatural ability. He did give something supernatural and you don't accept it because you can't test it. What is He to do with you? Some people will never see and understand, it is tragic but why should all us suffer because of the blindness of others? You simply don't and can't get it and you never will.

tdv123

antiskeptic wrote: »

Hi there...

This problem (or objection if you prefer) is best dealt with by splitting it up into componants.

Componant 1: Choice

(Probably) most of Christianity considers Hell to be the destination of those who choose it. Leaving aside the issue of how a person, who doesn't believe in God's existance, chooses Hell, you could see how the problem is reduced somewhat. Whilst sorrowful, you might expect that I would at least respect their decision to be where they now are. That's what they wanted afterall.

Componant 2: The Personhood of the person in Hell.

The person in Hell is there because they effectively reject association with the things of God. Which means they reject association with the image of God in which they were made. And so that image is removed from them

Which means you wouldn't recognise you own mother if you saw her in her Hell-state. All that is attractive, joyful, loving, courageous, positive ... about your mother will be gone. All that will be left is her without that which makes her good. Her selfishness, her spitefulness, her meaness ... is all you would see.

Would you miss such a creature?



* It should be noted that what I think constitutes a Christian and what you think constitutes a Christian might differ but I'm leaving that aside.

What about a child who dies at a young age & never had enough time to find Jesus in his/her life?

Or a person who was never exposed to the outside world & also never had a chance to learn about Jesus.

What would happen to these people? People who didn't get a chance to accept or reject Jesus. Surley it would not be fair to punish somebody after death if they did not have a fair chance in life?

PDN

tdv123 wrote: »

What about a child who dies at a young age & never had enough time to find Jesus in his/her life?

I think you'll find that most Christians would not for a moment imagine that such a child would go to hell. They haven't committed sin yet, so there would be no reason for them to punished for sins they haven't committed.

Rev Hellfire

Its funny how those who hold Christianity to the more extreme non-compromising ideology are atheists and Christian fundamentalists.

StormWarrior

Soul Winner wrote: »

The central point in the Christian faith is the resurrection of Jesus. If that didn't happen then its all cr*p anyway. If it did, then its the central point of history. Plus it is the only sign Jesus said would be given to the world, the sign of Jonah. If you don't accept that sign then you'll never accept anything. In short, if God gave you something natural that you would accept then you'd want something supernatural to prove His supernatural ability. He did give something supernatural and you don't accept it because you can't test it. What is He to do with you? Some people will never see and understand, it is tragic but why should all us suffer because of the blindness of others? You simply don't and can't get it and you never will.

What makes you think no sign would convince me? If God boomed his voice out from the sky, took us all on a trip to visit heaven and hell and caused, say, an earthquake which decimated everything and then put it all nicely back together, I'm sure a lot of people would believe. Why should anyone believe the "sign" of the resurrection? It wasn't a sign because we didn't see it, we just heard about it in a book written hundreds of years ago. What should make me accept Christianity when there's no evidence and also a hundred other religions also claiming that they are the truth?

What do you mean "why should all of us suffer because of the blindness of others?" How is it making you suffer if the "unworthy" souls are destroyed or sent somewhere else instead of kept in hell for eternity? And why doesn't God just destroy the souls who aren't destined for heaven?

If, after you die, it turns out that your belief in Christianity was mistaken and Islam was the true religion, will you be ok with the fact that you rot in hell for eternity for believing the wrong thing?

antiskeptic

StormWarrior wrote: »

Thanks for the answer. However, I do not understand why Christians think that the non-Christian chooses hell. The majority of us, we simply don't believe that the Christian god exists, or that the biblical tales are true. I, and I'm sure the majority of other people, certainly don't choose to go to hell, we just don't believe that it exists. We don't make the decision: "I have a choice between heaven and hell, and I choose hell." If it turned out that my lack of faith is wrong (although I really don't think that it is) and the Christian god is real and heaven and hell exist, then of course I would prefer heaven. But I've thought about it long and hard, studied the evidence and actually did Christian theology A-Level and studied religion at university, was sent to Sunday school for years as a child, and after all that I just genuinely do not believe that Christianity can possibly be true. If it turns out I'm wrong, that doesn't mean that I have chosen hell. I don't see how we can leave aside the issue of someone who deosn't believe in God's existence. And what about people who follow Islam or some other religion in good faith? They haven't chosen hell, they've tried everything they can to make sure that they get into heaven.

A couple of things to note:

1) You don't reason your way to belief in God (or not) - according to the Bible. According to the Bible belief in God arises out of God's self-revelation to you.

2) How you arrive at the point where he reveals himself to you is the area involving choice. There are various arguments, my own centring on the undoubted ability a person has to believe God even when they don't believe in God. The example oft used is your believing murder to be wrong being a case of your believing God - even though you don't believe in God.

Hence a mechanism whereby God and man can interface/act - before the point where God turns up. A mechanism whereby you can make all sorts of choices w.r.t. the things of God.

3) Theology is very often taught by atheists so there isn't even the certainty that the Christian gospel was that to which you were exposed in your studies. And as Sunday school experience might point out - even being exposed to the Christian gospel (assuming you were ,there) doesn't necessarily mean a person will be saved (or "get it")

Main point: you can choose for/against God without believing God exists.

It says on many webpages that Christians believe that God allows souls to go to hell because he doesn't want to interfere with their free choice of rejecting him. But even if they believe and have rejected him, what if they don't choose hell either? What if they choose non-existence, or a non-stop eternal party or orgy? Isn't God interfering with their free will by stopping this from happening?

It would depend on your definition of free will. To me a will that is free is one that can choose freely between options presented. That the options might be limited doesn't mean the will isn't free to choose from what's there. And seeing as God is about the biggest 'item' one could choose between (as in possessing the item or not) I think this is about a free as freewill would get.

(Not that I believe man has free will I might add: I adhere to a mechanism of salvation which sees active expression of a man's will unto rejection of God and passive expression of a mans will (ie: it does nothing) unto acceptance of God. The analogy used would be one of a fisherman: if the fish caught it is by the will of the fisherman. If fish escapes it is because of the will of the fish). The fish contributes nothing, by way of act of will, to it's being caught).

About component 2 - does it actually say this in the bible, that a person's good traits are removed from them in hell? Even if it does, the fact remains that your mother's consciousness still exists, and that consciousness will be in torment. Your mother is still suffering even if her personality has somehow been changed. Would you really enjoy heaven knowing that?

I think that is the direction the Bible goes in. You must remember that the term "my mother" would cease to exist because the elements going to make up the personhood of my mother wouldn't be assembled in one person anymore. I love my mother because she is loveable - my loving is a reaction to something in her. Were it that all that is loveable is stripped away, then I wouldn't be able to love my mother anymore. She wouldn't exist to love. This doesn't mean that there isn't a consciousness there - there would indeed be. But that personhood is my mother-minus.


(As it happens my mother is also saved. So I'll be spending eternity with her )

antiskeptic

tdv123 wrote: »

What about a child who dies at a young age & never had enough time to find Jesus in his/her life?

The Bible is, I gather, silent on the issue. Better to deal with what is revealed than what isn't.

Or a person who was never exposed to the outside world & also never had a chance to learn about Jesus.

I've no reason to suppose that a person has to have heard of Jesus in order that they be saved. If God can reach Old Testament characters and save them (before Jesus' incarnation) then I've no reason to suppose he can't do the same today.

What would happen to these people? People who didn't get a chance to accept or reject Jesus. Surley it would not be fair to punish somebody after death if they did not have a fair chance in life?

Indeed. Although I think the way of salvation involves a prior step to accepting Jesus. That prior step involves believing God in a specific way - after which a person is "given" to Jesus. A person can believe God without believing in God (see a simple, non-salvation inducing example in the post to StormWarrior above re: believing murder wrong)

herbiemcc

Have you guys heard of correlation v causation?

"Independently agrees with" does not equal "Believes". Please get a dictionary.

This has already been discussed in other threads but it is ludicrous to say that 'believing' murder is wrong equates to believing God. Do you believe in every single god of antiquity who said that murder is wrong? Obviously you do by following your argument even though it doesn't really make sense.

I could make up a god right now and smugly say that all your opinions and ethics are derived from him because they match. You could not disprove it - ever.

---

The previous point made about not caring about your own mother's fate because she wouldn't be 'lovable' any more is just cold. Your mother could have a mental illness tomorrow (hopefully not of course) that would make her unrecognisably bitter and twisted. It sounds like you'd throw her in a care home and never look back. Who needs an un-lovable mother anyway?

antiskeptic

herbiemcc wrote: »

Have you guys heard of correlation v causation?

"Independently agrees with" does not equal "Believes". Please get a dictionary.

This has already been discussed in other threads but it is ludicrous to say that 'believing' murder is wrong equates to believing God. Do you believe in every single god of antiquity who said that murder is wrong? Obviously you do by following your argument even though it doesn't really make sense.

I'm assuming for the sake of argument that God exists and is the source of our sense of good & evil. If he does and is then my point stands - there is no independent arrival at good and evi thus a person believing murder to be wrong is actually believing God - even though they don't believe in God. Thus is the objection raised, answered.

If he doesn't exist then of course the point doesn't stand.

This is Christian apologetics. Not Christian proof of anything.

The previous point made about not caring about your own mother's fate because she wouldn't be 'lovable' any more is just cold.

She would't exist anymore so there can be no talk of "she"

Your mother could have a mental illness tomorrow (hopefully not of course) that would make her unrecognisably bitter and twisted. It sounds like you'd throw her in a care home and never look back. Who needs an un-lovable mother anyway?

In the case of my Hell-abiding mother, it is her that choose the condition she is now in (went the argument up-thread). Her being stripped of goodness is a consequence of her decision w.r.t. God.

Her will would have been done, in other words...

Soul Winner

StormWarrior wrote: »

What makes you think no sign would convince me?

It's just a hunch I have. I could be wrong.

StormWarrior wrote: »

If God boomed his voice out from the sky, took us all on a trip to visit heaven and hell and caused, say, an earthquake which decimated everything and then put it all nicely back together, I'm sure a lot of people would believe.

You see there's two ways of getting your attention. Your way and God's way. But why should God condescend to doing things your way when He has already decisively revealed Himself in Jesus and performed many signs and wonders through Him? OK you weren't an eye witness but we have eye witness testimony of these things written down since the beginning. So unless you can show that somehow this testimony is unsound then it can be taken as sound, and if the implications of those reports are that there exists a supernatural God then so be it.

StormWarrior wrote: »

Why should anyone believe the "sign" of the resurrection? It wasn't a sign because we didn't see it, we just heard about it in a book written hundreds of years ago.

Well the reports that somebody raised from the dead are either true or not true. And the only way to conclude either way is to accertain whether the reporters (the disciples) were lying about it or not. I've studied the records and read between the lines and I can find nothing to suggest that these disciples were doing anything other than telling what the experienced and saw with their own eyes. And not only that, but that they were happy to die shameful horrible deaths for this testimony to boot. That might sound like nothing as you read this but put yourself in their shoes. All you would have to do to put a stop to the torture and death that is coming your way is to deny Christ rose and ascended and was the Son of God. If you had made it all up as a lie then you knew it was a lie and there is no way that all of these disciples would willingly die these horrendous deaths for a lie that they knew was a lie. I might believe that they would do it for something that they believed was true but were simply mistaken about but these disciples claimed that they were eye witnesses to the resurrected Christ and died gruesome deaths because they would not renege on that testimony. To have paid that high a price for any testimony I think their accounts of what they said deserve a more than a fleeting glance.

StormWarrior wrote: »

What should make me accept Christianity when there's no evidence and also a hundred other religions also claiming that they are the truth?

Study and research all the religions of the world and draw a conclusion based on that. Do a comparative religion course somewhere and mark the differences in each religion. You will find that out of all the respected founders of religion that Jesus was the only one who centered the religious experience in Himself. All the other leaders put the center of the religious experience outside of themselves. Jesus made claims about Himself that should belong in the funny land realm of religion and yet the world says of Him that it's OK to respect Him as a good and wise teacher but not as supernatural. If the claims He made are not true then He cannot be both good and wise. He could be good if He was an honest megalomaniac but not wise enough to know that His claims are not true. Or He could be wise enough to know His claims are not true but uses them to manipulate His followers which would mean that He is not honest and therefore not good. He is one or the other or if He's both then He is also supernatural. Give the Jews credit, they knew that no mortal man could make the claims Jesus made about Himself and called Him a blasphemer. They at least recognized that only God could claim the things Jesus went around claiming. And if Jesus was a fraud then they were right to have Him executed. But if the claims were true, then He is the Lord of Glory and we must deal with Him as such.

StormWarrior wrote: »

What do you mean "why should all of us suffer because of the blindness of others?" How is it making you suffer if the "unworthy" souls are destroyed or sent somewhere else instead of kept in hell for eternity?

As it is we cannot force people to believe what we believe to be true but that shouldn't mean that we should side with them and suffer the same fate as them either.

StormWarrior wrote: »

And why doesn't God just destroy the souls who aren't destined for heaven?

Again it is pretty foolish to think that God should condescend to doing this the way you would like Him to. Why should He? He wants faith from you and doesn't get it, so why should He give ear to any of your requests? If you don't like a God like that then that is your problem not His. He is not running a popularity contest and is not looking for friends. He is seeking out people who will simply trust Him with their lives so that He can save them from the destruction to come. Everybody is capable to grabbing onto this great news but only a few will, everyone else is going to fry, simple as. The question should not be: "How can you serve a God like that?" Rather it should be: "How can you not serve such a God who gave His only Son to die in your place, and to do it with joyfulness and gladness of heart?"

StormWarrior wrote: »

If, after you die, it turns out that your belief in Christianity was mistaken and Islam was the true religion, will you be ok with the fact that you rot in hell for eternity for believing the wrong thing?

I'm content in knowing that what I believe is true. If Allah has a problem with me being truthful to myself then he can bite me. The God I serve judges the heart all the time and I'm sure there will be many Jews, Muslims and all sorts in heaven, even people who thought they were against Jesus because they apposed a corrupt church. God sees the heart and knows if you are being truthful to what you profess about yourself even if that profession is for atheism. What He will not tolerate is anyone who has been enlightened by the Gospel of Jesus Christ to willfully turn away from it or to simply reject in order to live a self centered existence. Folks like that are in much great danger of the fiery wrath than the poor unenlightened tribes living off grubs in the backside of nowhere who are true to their own beliefs and consciousness. God is a just God and will take your circumstances into account when you stand before Him to give account. But to the ones who have the light better make sure that they hold fast to it more and more each day as God will not be pleased with any of those who turn their backs on it or treated it as something cheap.

PDN

StormWarrior wrote: »

If, after you die, it turns out that your belief in Christianity was mistaken and Islam was the true religion, will you be ok with the fact that you rot in hell for eternity for believing the wrong thing?

You're rather spectacularly missing the point. No-one goes to hell for 'believing the wrong thing'. You go to hell for sinning - for lying, cheating, stealing, being selfish etc.

If Islam is correct and I go to hell then I will receive exactly what I deserve, and I should have no complaints at all about that.

As it is I believe that the Christian Gospel offers me a totally undeserved opportunity to receive eternal life. And if I reject that offer then I receive exactly what my sins deserve.

Morbert

While I am certainly no theologian, I have always found hell (at least the traditional 'permanence' image of it) to be completely jarring and at odds with the message of Christianity.

We have a God that gave up His own life so that we might be saved, but when we die, He instantly retracts the offer, and sends us to hell no matter how much we would ask to be forgiven.

And just to be clear, I'm not saying we wouldn't deserve it. I'm saying it doesn't seem to be consistent.

If I ever did become a Christian, I would probably adopt a more considered approach to the doctrine of Hell.

antiskeptic

Morbert wrote: »

While I am certainly no theologian, I have always found hell (at least the traditional 'permanence' image of it) to be completely jarring and at odds with the message of Christianity.

We have a God that gave up His own life so that we might be saved..

...from Hell

.. but when we die, He instantly retracts the offer, and sends us to hell no matter how much we would ask to be forgiven.

The offer has a life-span. A best before date. We are enabled to make a choice regarding the offer and having done so to God's satisfaction there is no point in asking us to choose again.

To do so would be a little like being asked to vote on Lisbon a second time. Farcical.

And just to be clear, I'm not saying we wouldn't deserve it. I'm saying it doesn't seem to be consistent.

What do you think now?

If I ever did become a Christian, I would probably adopt a more considered approach to the doctrine of Hell.

It seems to fit pretty well together from where I'm sitting.

Zombrex

antiskeptic wrote: »

The offer has a life-span. A best before date.

I think that is the bit that Morbet is saying doesn't make sense.

I can go my entire life sinning my way through it and then, on my death bed, suddenly realize that God exists, he loves me, I was doing wrong by him, and accept his offer of salvation from his holy punishment.

But 2 seconds after I die, when I actually am standing in front of God and thus would realize if I hadn't already, that God exists, he loves me, I was doing wrong by him, I can't.

It seems a little odd.

But anyway, that is a bit off topic. For the purposes of this discussion about how Christians feel about hell, are we to take the above as a given? Or do some Christians believe you can actually do this after death?

Morbert

antiskeptic wrote: »

The offer has a life-span. A best before date. We are enabled to make a choice regarding the offer and having done so to God's satisfaction there is no point in asking us to choose again.

To do so would be a little like being asked to vote on Lisbon a second time. Farcical.

If that were the case then surely we would have all been sorted the minute we took a bite from the apple. Christianity seemed to be all about salvation despite bad choices in life. It seems odd that a God who cared enough to pour his entire being into saving us bad-choice-makers would so quickly retract His efforts.

Zombrex

antiskeptic wrote: »

The Bible is, I gather, silent on the issue. Better to deal with what is revealed than what isn't.

Genuine question

Is the Bible actually silent on the issue or does it simply not make any distinction between an adult and a child (and thus you could conclude children end up in hell along with everyone else?)

Is this idea that children don't sin Biblical, or is it a later interpretation?

JimiTime

antiskeptic wrote: »

It seems to fit pretty well together from where I'm sitting.

I think it only truly fits if Johns description of it being 'The second death of which there is no resurrection' is what it is, and I don't see it as being anything else but what John so concisely describes.

The whole idea of living forever in torture or sufferings simply does not compute. This Christian believes it is what John says it is. An eternal death, of which no resurrection is possible.

JimiTime

Morbert wrote: »

If that were the case then surely we would have all been sorted the minute we took a bite from the apple. Christianity seemed to be all about salvation despite bad choices in life. It seems odd that a God who cared enough to pour his entire being into saving us bad-choice-makers would so quickly retract His efforts.

TBF, its over 2000 years and counting.

antiskeptic

Wicknight wrote: »

I think that is the bit that Morbet is saying doesn't make sense.

I can go my entire life sinning my way through it and then, on my death bed, suddenly realize that God exists, he loves me, I was doing wrong by him, and accept his offer of salvation from his holy punishment. But 2 seconds after I die, when I actually am standing in front of God and thus would realize if I hadn't already, that God exists, he loves me, I was doing wrong by him, I can't.

It seems a little odd.

I don't see much by way of choice involved in such a post-mortem conversion. It would be more a case of compulsion unto belief than the choice-based mechanism utilised by God in this life.

I know we disagree on a man being able to believe God without believing in God but at least we might agree that the post-mortem situation dissolves any possibility of choice.

But anyway, that is a bit off topic. For the purposes of this discussion about how Christians feel about hell, are we to take the above as a given? Or do some Christians believe you can actually do this after death?

I'm not aware of many Christians who believe in post-mortem conversion.

There's purgo of course, for those so inclined..

antiskeptic

JimiTime wrote: »

I think it only truly fits if Johns description of it being 'The second death of which there is no resurrection' is what it is, and I don't see it as being anything else but what John so concisely describes.

The whole idea of living forever in torture or sufferings simply does not compute. This Christian believes it is what John says it is. An eternal death, of which no resurrection is possible.

Do you also believe that fallen men are born dead too (the first death). Wouldn't this permit conscious death?

kelly1

Morbert wrote: »

While I am certainly no theologian, I have always found hell (at least the traditional 'permanence' image of it) to be completely jarring and at odds with the message of Christianity.

We have a God that gave up His own life so that we might be saved, but when we die, He instantly retracts the offer, and sends us to hell no matter how much we would ask to be forgiven.

And just to be clear, I'm not saying we wouldn't deserve it. I'm saying it doesn't seem to be consistent.

If I ever did become a Christian, I would probably adopt a more considered approach to the doctrine of Hell.

Hello Morbert, you might find answers to your questions in the work of Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange

http://www.catholictreasury.info/books/everlasting_life/index.php

See the chapters on final impenitence and immutability of the soul after death.

God bless,
Noel.

Zombrex

antiskeptic wrote: »

I don't see much by way of choice involved in such a post-mortem conversion. It would be more a case of compulsion unto belief than the choice-based mechanism utilised by God in this life.

I know we disagree on a man being able to believe God without believing in God but at least we might agree that the post-mortem situation dissolves any possibility of choice.

Not sure why?

When you are alive God send the Bible to you and says accept what this says about sin, accept you are a sinner and deserve punishment, accept that Jesus died for your sins, and you will be forgiven

When you are dead God says to you accept what I say about sin, accept that you are sinner and deserve punishment, accept that Jesus died for your sins, and you will be forgiven

What is the difference? You still choose to accept or not. Just when you are dead and see God before you you have more convincing reason to, but isn't that the point? Doesn't God want to convince you of these things?

Christians like to say that I go to hell because I choose to reject God.

Don't I actually have to believe he exists in the first place, and wouldn't this 2 seconds after I die meeting with God be the perfect time for when I choose to reject or accept what God is saying to me?

Soul Winner

Wicknight wrote: »

Not sure why?

When you are alive God send the Bible to you and says accept what this says about sin, accept you are a sinner and deserve punishment, accept that Jesus died for your sins, and you will be forgiven

When you are dead God says to you accept what I say about sin, accept that you are sinner and deserve punishment, accept that Jesus died for your sins, and you will be forgiven

What is the difference? You still choose to accept or not. Just when you are dead and see God before you you have more convincing reason to, but isn't that the point? Doesn't God want to convince you of these things?

Christians like to say that I go to hell because I choose to reject God.

Don't I actually have to believe he exists in the first place, and wouldn't this 2 seconds after I die meeting with God be the perfect time for when I choose to reject or accept what God is saying to me?

Have a read of the following two parables and they should shed some light on the subject for you:

Luke 8:4-15

The Parable of the Sower

"4While a large crowd was gathering and people were coming to Jesus from town after town, he told this parable: 5"A farmer went out to sow his seed. As he was scattering the seed, some fell along the path; it was trampled on, and the birds of the air ate it up. 6Some fell on rock, and when it came up, the plants withered because they had no moisture. 7Other seed fell among thorns, which grew up with it and choked the plants. 8Still other seed fell on good soil. It came up and yielded a crop, a hundred times more than was sown." When he said this, he called out, "He who has ears to hear, let him hear." 9His disciples asked him what this parable meant. 10He said, "The knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of God has been given to you, but to others I speak in parables, so that, " 'though seeing, they may not see; though hearing, they may not understand.' 11"This is the meaning of the parable: The seed is the word of God. 12Those along the path are the ones who hear, and then the devil comes and takes away the word from their hearts, so that they may not believe and be saved. 13Those on the rock are the ones who receive the word with joy when they hear it, but they have no root. They believe for a while, but in the time of testing they fall away. 14The seed that fell among thorns stands for those who hear, but as they go on their way they are choked by life's worries, riches and pleasures, and they do not mature. 15But the seed on good soil stands for those with a noble and good heart, who hear the word, retain it, and by persevering produce a crop."


Luke 16:19-31

The Rich Man and Lazarus

"There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day: 20And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full of sores, 21And desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man's table: moreover the dogs came and licked his sores. 22And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried; 23And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom. 24And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame. 25But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented. 26And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence. 27Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father's house: 28For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment. 29Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them. 30And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent. 31And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead."

Basically you must be in the faith before you die, because the scripture says that man is destined to die once and then to face judgment. If you are not trusting in the salvation provided by Jesus then you are not covered by it and thus are exposed to God's judgment naked as a Jay bird and still in your sins. If you do not accept the atoning work that Christ provided then you will pay for your own sins yourself, and the wages of sin is death, eternal death, but the gift of God is eternal life. And the only way to appropriate it is to simply trust God's Word of promise for your life everyday until you cross that gang plank into eternity.

Zombrex

Soul Winner wrote: »

Basically you must be in the faith before you die, because the scripture says that man is destined to die once and then to face judgment. If you are not trusting in the salvation provided by Jesus then you are not covered by it and thus are exposed to God's judgment naked as a Jay bird and still in your sins. If you do not accept the atoning work that Christ provided then you will pay for your own sins yourself, and the wages of sin is death, eternal death, but the gift of God is eternal life. And the only way to appropriate it is to simply trust God's Word of promise for your life everyday until you cross that gang plank into eternity.

That is a what rather than a why. I'm not debating that Christians believe this, just agreeing with Morbet that the way God has set this up is a bit odd.

antiskeptic

Wicknight wrote: »

Genuine question

Is there any other kind?

Is the Bible actually silent on the issue or does it simply not make any distinction between an adult and a child (and thus you could conclude children end up in hell along with everyone else?)

Expressed will appears to be a part of the means whereby a person is damned (if not a part of the means whereby a person is saved). And to express will in any meaninful way means being in a position to evaluate and make a decision. Which would appear to exclude the very young at least - although not quite as young perhaps, as sentiment might prefer.

Is this idea that children don't sin Biblical, or is it a later interpretation?

It seems to me that children are capable of lying as soon as their able to talk so I'm not sure I agree that children don't sin. I don't know about babies though..

Zombrex

antiskeptic wrote: »

Is there any other kind?

Yup, for example "Why are atheists so fond of eating babies"

antiskeptic wrote: »

Expressed will appears to be a part of the means whereby a person is damned (if not a part of the means whereby a person is saved). And to express will in any meaninful way means being in a position to evaluate and make a decision. Which would appear to exclude the very young at least - although not quite as young perhaps, as sentiment might prefer.

Is that a Biblical judgement (I'm gathering not as you say would appear as few times)?

antiskeptic wrote: »

It seems to me that children are capable of lying as soon as their able to talk so I'm not sure I agree that children don't sin. I don't know about babies though..

Do you believe that children who lie are sinning in a way that damns them to hell?

Again, genuine question, I'm not going to faux outrage if you say yes like some posters

antiskeptic

Wicknight wrote: »

Not sure why?

When you are alive God send the Bible to you and says accept what this says about sin, accept you are a sinner and deserve punishment, accept that Jesus died for your sins, and you will be forgiven

All of which is rationally deniable

When you are dead God says to you accept what I say about sin, accept that you are sinner and deserve punishment, accept that Jesus died for your sins, and you will be forgiven

All of which would be rationally undeniable - faced as you would be with all the proof you need (assuming for the sake of argument that God being indeed light gives you all the evidence you need to conclude (by way of comparing yourself with him) that in you there is very much darkness. I'm not supposing your "Hey God, can you demonstrate you're the absolute of absolutes" endless-regression-escape-hatch )

What is the difference? You still choose to accept or not. Just when you are dead and see God before you you have more convincing reason to, but isn't that the point? Doesn't God want to convince you of these things?

Not more convincing. Absolutely convincing, Thus no choice. Whilst God want's that none should perish, that wish isn't superceded by the primary wish that you express which it is you want: him or not.

That he only exposes you to what he represents (and doesn't represent) prior to saving you is deemed sufficient information for you to make a choice with. If you love what he represents then you'll love him and will meet with him in a pleasant way. If you don't you won't and will meet in a less than pleasant way.

Christians like to say that I go to hell because I choose to reject God.

Indeed. This Christian especially. I'm not sure a Calvinist would say you've a choice in the matter and there's a few of them about.

Don't I actually have to believe he exists in the first place, and wouldn't this 2 seconds after I die meeting with God be the perfect time for when I choose to reject or accept what God is saying to me?

God has provided a way to arrive at suitable belief. It's his mechanism and it works for the reason given (choice). Your way doesn't work for that reason.

Soul Winner

Wicknight wrote: »

That is a what rather than a why. I'm not debating that Christians believe this, just agreeing with Morbet that the way God has set this up is a bit odd.

Well be that as it may but you can't say that He hasn't given advanced notice of it in fairness.

antiskeptic

Wicknight wrote: »

Yup, for example "Why are atheists so fond of eating babies"

Do you have to eat stem cells to get them to work?

Is that a Biblical judgement (I'm gathering not as you say would appear as few times)?

The are very many things the Bible doesn't pronounce on and so we have to say 'what appears to be the case'. It's a conclusion drawn from what is given not what could be otherwise possible (given the extent of what is possible but isn't mentioned)

Do you believe that children who lie are sinning in a way that damns them to hell?

Again, genuine question, I'm not going to faux outrage if you say yes like some posters

Young children lie consciously and are aware of it (judging by the howls when caught out in a lie). If such a child dies will he be condemned if he hasn't otherwise been saved? I don't see why not.

My wife converted aged 11. I've heard of folk converting at age 7. I've no reason to suppose that a person saved at those ages didn't need salvation.

Zombrex

Soul Winner wrote: »

Well be that as it may but you can't say that He hasn't given advanced notice of it in fairness.

I'm not.

JimiTime

antiskeptic wrote: »

Do you also believe that fallen men are born dead too (the first death).

That is not 'the first death'. The first death is what all human kind go into since Adam. It is the wages we experienced, but which Christ then conquered so that through him we can attain the gift of everlasting life. Post resurrection, if this gift has not been bestowed, or accepted, you will go into the lake of fire. I.E. The second death of which there is no resurrection. It is an everlasting punishment. You are finito, for there is no resurrection from the second death as John so concisely put it.

Leaving scripture aside, the idea of being conciously alive for eternity but in a tortured, sufferring state, does not make the slightest bit of sense and seems completely at odds with God.

Zombrex

antiskeptic wrote: »

All of which is rationally deniable
...
All of which would be rationally undeniable

But that is the point. Why would God want his existence to be rationally deniable?

It wouldn't remove choice. It is not rationally deniable that Chairman Mao existed or what he taught. I still am not a Mao communist, not because I deny Mao existed, but because I don't agree with it and thus reject it.

It seems odd that God would bring the issue of simply thinking he doesn't exist into the equation at all.

Why not leave the choice till after you die and are presented with God.

Then you are actually choosing to reject or accept him. The question of whether he actually exists is not relevant cause it has already been demonstrated.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Not more convincing. Absolutely convincing, Thus no choice.

There is no choice to believe God doesn't exist. But why is that the issue? Is that the choice that matters?

Plenty of people know God exists and still reject him. Satan knows God exists and still rejects him, as do the angels that follow Satan.

Surely the choice would/should be to accept or reject what God says, in the same way that you accept or reject what Mao or Marks or Ghandi says.

The issue of whether they exist is not a choice, but it is also not relevant to accepting what they say or not.

Which is why it seems some what odd.

Zombrex

antiskeptic wrote: »

Young children lie consciously and are aware of it (judging by the howls when caught out in a lie). If such a child dies will he be condemned if he hasn't otherwise been saved? I don't see why not.

My wife converted aged 11. I've heard of folk converting at age 7. I've no reason to suppose that a person saved at those ages didn't need salvation.

That is a refreshingly honest answer for this forum.

I am of course utterly outraged and offended by your views :pac:

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

Leaving scripture aside, the idea of being conciously alive for eternity but in a tortured, sufferring state, does not make the slightest bit of sense and seems completely at odds with God.

Jimi you would make a good atheist.

antiskeptic

JimiTime wrote: »

That is not 'the first death'. The first death is what all human kind go into since Adam. It is the wages we experienced, but which Christ then conquered so that through him we can attain the gift of everlasting life.

Would you accept that mankind is born dead to God through Adams sin. And that Adam died on the day he ate of the fruit - just as God promised he would. And that through Christ we can be resurrected to new life (life which starts the moment we are born again)?

If so then there should be no issue with believing a second death involving the same kind of thing as the first: conscious yet separate from the life of God.

Post resurrection, if this gift has not been bestowed, or accepted, you will go into the lake of fire. I.E. The second death of which there is no resurrection. It is an everlasting punishment. You are finito, for there is no resurrection from the second death as John so concisely put it.

"Post resurrection if this gift"? The gift is resurrection in the first place. Crucified with Christ, raised with him to new life. Life now..

Leaving scripture aside, the idea of being conciously alive for eternity but in a tortured, sufferring state, does not make the slightest bit of sense and seems completely at odds with God.

I dunno. If choice is the name of the game and we are the choosers then giving us what it is we choose for seems a fair enough thing for God to do. That the consequences are exposure to amazing grace or furious wrath don't seem to me to be either here or there - they would simply be a function of the nature of God.

And it strikes me as impossible to miss that one attribute of God is that he is furious wrath against sin.

We are created eternal (although spend a portion of that in time). Meaning we have a situation where an eternal being commits a crime against an eternal God in a subset of the eternal realm called time and the punishment is eternal in nature too. The units seem consistant across the board - always a good thing to try to achieve.

antiskeptic

Wicknight wrote: »

That is a refreshingly honest answer for this forum.

I am of course utterly outraged and offended by your views :pac:

Q: Hey athiest. Do you like children

A: Sure, but I wouldn't eat a whole one..

*boom boom*

iUseVi

Wicknight wrote: »

Again, genuine question, I'm not going to faux outrage if you say yes like some posters

To be fair Wicknight, some of us actually are outraged at certain dogma, nothing "faux" about it.

antiskeptic

Wicknight wrote: »

But that is the point. Why would God want his existence to be rationally deniable?

Because it, along with his existance being rationally acceptable, form two sides of the choice coin.

It wouldn't remove choice. It is not rationally deniable that Chairman Mao existed or what he taught. I still am not a Mao communist, not because I deny Mao existed, but because I don't agree with it and thus reject it.

But you wouldn't be able to avoid. You couldn't help but see God as light and you as dark as can be. That would be the objective situation. What you might not be taking account of in your forecast is the permission you currently have to argue away things relies on your not being exposed to God. Once you are, you'll see him as he is and there won't be any argument about it

"Every knee will bow and every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord". Not because they want to (all of them) but because he is.

Why not leave the choice till after you die and are presented with God.

Then you are actually choosing to reject or accept him. The question of whether he actually exists is not relevant cause it has already been demonstrated.

Hmm. Of course you'd accept him. You'd become remarkably aware of this until-now-unproblematic issue of sin on your account. And faced with a God of furious wrath against sin you'd have no choice but to accept him. The weight of terror pressing down upon you from such holiness couldn't be resisted by you.

You've only a man-sized will Wicknight. And it wasn't designed to withstand the gaze of God. You'd crumple...in a heartbeat.

No choice involved.

There is no choice to believe God doesn't exist. But why is that the issue? Is that the choice that matters?

There is a choice to believe God doesn't exist. Indeed that choice is part of the suite of choices facing you that go to make up your final say so with respect to the overarching issue facing you.

Plenty of people know God exists and still reject him. Satan knows God exists and still rejects him, as do the angels that follow Satan.

Indeed. They've exercised their choice and having done so are in no need of being given another one. You, on the other hand are a decision in waiting. I sincerely hope you'll choose for God at some point.

Surely the choice would/should be to accept or reject what God says, in the same way that you accept or reject what Mao or Marks or Ghandi says.

Mao and Ghandi were men talking about man-sized issues. God is talking about eternity and your place in it.

But ultimately your choice will be about what God says: accept/reject. It's just that he has more ways of talking to you than Ghandi ever did. He's got the creation at his disposal - and access to your mind. As well as lil old apologists like us.

antiskeptic

iUseVi wrote: »

To be fair Wicknight, some of us actually are outraged as certain dogma, nothing "faux" about it.

And some of you disappear like rats up drainpipes whenever the issue of your own sin and your own salvation come into focus. For up those drainpipes lies the salvation of infants, the mentally disabled and "those who never heard of Christ"

Zombrex

iUseVi wrote: »

To be fair Wicknight, some of us actually are outraged as certain dogma, nothing "faux" about it.

Meh, I think some people (not saying you) misdirect their outrage.

I don't see how anyone can be outraged by a Christian following Christian dogma. What is shocking about that?

I'm not saying someone can't strongly disagree or find Christian belief extremely distasteful or horrible. But to be outraged suggests a level of shock and anger that I find hard to believe genuinely manifests itself in anyone except those who are very ignorant of Christianity.

It is like the difference between being outraged that Miley Cyrus the children's singer is dancing like a stripper at a children's award show and being outraged that Miley Cyrus the redneck stripper is dancing like a stripper in a strip bar.

In the same way I would ask that person what exact did you think happened in a strip bar, I would ask someone "outraged" by something a Christian said what exactly did you think Christians believed?

IE how has what just happened shocked you?

Zombrex

antiskeptic wrote: »

And some of you disappear like rats up drainpipes whenever the issue of your own sin and your own salvation come into focus. For up those drainpipes lies the salvation of infants, the mentally disabled and "those who never heard of Christ"

You put infants in drain pipes. :eek:

iUseVi

antiskeptic wrote: »

And some of you disappear like rats up drainpipes whenever the issue of your own sin and your own salvation come into focus. For up those drainpipes lies the salvation of infants, the mentally disabled and "those who never heard of Christ"

What about those that are unable to take things without evidence? I know some Christians say they have evidence that convinces them. But if this does not convince me where does it leave me? I'm talking answered prayers, miracle healings etc. I personally find these unconvincing. What is left? As a child I prayed to god and never got an answer, not once. Why should I believe when I find nothing convincing? I've been up and down all the drainpipes many times, trust me. Still nothing I'm afraid. I think I am like what Pascal said, "I am so made that I cannot believe." Not to say that I never did. I certainly did as a child. But that balloon has popped and I can conceive of no possible way to inflate it.