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

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.

iUseVi

Wicknight wrote: »

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.

Yeah, thats what I mean. Don't want to get into semantics about the word outrage.

Zombrex

antiskeptic wrote: »

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

Does it? Is that the coin?

My understanding was the coin was do you accept or reject God, not do you think God does or does not exist?

If what God wants is for people to freely choose to accept him, rather than him having to make them accept him (bit like Lost ) it would seem to be sensible that we come to that choice fully aware he exists. Otherwise things get muddled.

Of course I could be wrong in my understanding of what God wants.

antiskeptic wrote: »

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.

But that doesn't matter. That isn't the choice, is it? Satan sees God as light and him as dark, but that doesn't matter to him, he chooses dark because he is egotistical and selfish.

If the choice is to choose good over bad, to choose light over darkness, to choose righteousness over selfishness, to choose God over Satan, you surely need that choice laid out clearly in front of you.

The idea that could would muddy the waters so you can't actually tell what is good or bad seems nonsensical (like I said before, "odd"). What purpose does that serve?

It seems more like a trick. Because God is all powerful he can make good appear bad and bad appear good, but that serves no purpose if God is trying to determine which you will pick.

antiskeptic wrote: »

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

There won't be any denying he exists, but again that isn't the issue is it?

Adam and Eve didn't deny God existed. They still sinned, not because they rationalized that God wasn't real, but they were selfish and didn't listen to him.

You can still choose to do that. The question (to my understanding the only question) is will you do that and be like Eve or Satan, aware of God but rejecting his authority, or will you choose not to, will you choose to accept him.

The question of whether he exists or not seems utterly irrelevant.

antiskeptic wrote: »

"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.

But again that isn't the issue is it? Satan knows who God is. He still rejects him out of his own arrogance. Eve knew who God was, she still rejected him out of their own desires.

I'm not following the logic that once we know that God exists we won't choose to reject him. Don't you continue to choose to sin even though you know God exists?

antiskeptic wrote: »

And faced with a God of furious wrath against sin you'd have no choice but to accept him.

Of course you would, Satan and his angels did.

antiskeptic wrote: »

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.

That is some what nonsensical. God is all about choice and free will. Making me crumple in a heart beat would be nonsensical to the choice God is presenting to me.

He doesn't crush our free will with his gaze at the moment, there is no reason he would have to after we died either.

antiskeptic

iUseVi wrote: »

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.

The Christians around here usually preface such evidence with the rider that such occurances help sustain their belief - they don't usually say that their belief is founded upon such things in themselves.

I certainly wouldn't be convinced by what someone else says happened to their cancer - were it that I was an unbeliever. It would take God turning up at my door (so to speak) to convince me. And nothing less..

What is left? As a child I prayed to god and never got an answer, not once.

Me neither. I was an unbeliever then though so it might not be surprising that my prayers weren't answered.

Why should I believe when I find nothing convincing?

You shouldn't. You're not expected to believe in what you can't believe in - only what you can - and in the measure that you can.

Do you believe you're capable of and execute more often than you would like .. rotten actions. I don't mean the kinds of "mistakes" or "errors of judgement" beloved of those politicians/churchmen/businessmen caught foursquare in the headlights. I mean objective (as far as you are concerned) rotten actions. Wrong, putrid, ugly, dirty..

If so then you believe at least some of the things God says of you..

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.

I wouldn't fret untowardly. The Christian God either want's that none should perish and is working towards your salvation if you'll permit it. Or he isn't. If he is, you can rest assured he won't leave a stone unturned. If he isn't you can rest assured you've nothing to fear from the Christian God.

dvpower

Wicknight wrote: »

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?

Before I started frequenting this forum, I was under the apprehension that God wouldn't punish non believers or non Christians, so long as they led reasonable lives. I basically thought that (Christians believe that) one earned a place in heaven by ones actions in life, not necessarily by ones beliefs.

I got this idea from family and friends; people who would describe themselves as Christians, reasonably regular mass goers but who might be described as a la carte Christians. When I tell them that it is Christian belief that non Christians are destined for hell, they tell me not to be ridiculous. It’s only extremists that would take this view (and militant atheists that would propagate it).

I was shocked to find what Christians here tend to believe.

StormWarrior

Soul Winner wrote: »

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.

I don't see how this answer fits the question. No-one is asking you to side with atheists and suffer the same fate. The question is: how will God destroying those souls instead of sending them to hell for eternity hurt you?

Soul Winner wrote: »

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.

So, basically God can torture people for eternity, just because he can. It's not because he's being righteous or anything, it's just because he's capable of using his power any way he wants. The same as if a biologist created a human, or a parent had a child, and abused their child/creation if that child doesn't please them. They can just because they're more powerful than the person they're abusing. If that is how God really is, then God sounds to me like the worst child abuser in history.

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.

So then where does the idea of eternal torment come from? Why should we believe in Christianity when Christians can't even agree on the doctrines amongst themselves?

JimiTime wrote: »

TBF, its over 2000 years and counting.

Only 26 years for me.

Soul Winner wrote: »

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.

So it's non-existence after death, not eternal hell? So those of us who don't want eternal life have nothing to worry about, we can sin as much as we want and then just not exist any more? Sounds alright to me.

cynder

In Christian theology, the term hades refers to the abode of the dead. This is parallel to the Hebrew Sheol (שאול, grave or dirt-pit) and the English Hell (Old English, hel), which was derived from Norse mythology for the land of the dead


So we will all end up in hell, grave or dirt pit, land of the dead and abode of the dead. sheol, hades and hell are all the same......

iUseVi

antiskeptic wrote: »

You shouldn't. You're not expected to believe in what you can't believe in - only what you can - and in the measure that you can.

Interesting, did not expect that as a reply. :P

antiskeptic wrote: »

Do you believe you're capable of and execute more often than you would like .. rotten actions. I don't mean the kinds of "mistakes" or "errors of judgement" beloved of those politicians/churchmen/businessmen caught foursquare in the headlights. I mean objective (as far as you are concerned) rotten actions. Wrong, putrid, ugly, dirty..

If so then you believe at least some of the things God says of you..

No....I wouldn't say that at all. I sometimes feel bad about doing something, but I don't feel any of the words "Wrong, putrid, ugly, dirty" would apply at all. Humans make mistakes, I wouldn't say evil exists. Humans who do horrific crimes might be called "evil" but I just think they are mentally sick. But thats another issue.

antiskeptic wrote: »

I wouldn't fret untowardly. The Christian God either want's that none should perish and is working towards your salvation if you'll permit it. Or he isn't. If he is, you can rest assured he won't leave a stone unturned. If he isn't you can rest assured you've nothing to fear from the Christian God.

I appreciate your intentions, but trust me I really don't fret at all. In fact I am incredibly happy with the way things are, much happier than when I was a Christian. And I'm not saying that to antagonise in anyway, its just the truth. I used to constantly worry about "sins". Now that I (obviously) don't believe in sin its like a weight off my shoulders. Was walking on air for a few weeks when I first "deconverted". :P

The way I see it (and you might disagree) is that any god that exists would not force me to love them, that doesn't make any sense to me.

EDIT: To get back on topic, me going to hell simply for rejecting god would appear to make god not just. If he really loves me he wouldn't let me burn in hell even if I rejected him. Just as I would not let my child be tortured because they disobeyed me. Unthinkable.

Zombrex

dvpower wrote: »

Before I started frequenting this forum, I was under the apprehension that God wouldn't punish non believers or non Christians, so long as they led reasonable lives. I basically thought that (Christians believe that) one earned a place in heaven by ones actions in life, not necessarily by ones beliefs.

I got this idea from family and friends; people who would describe themselves as Christians, reasonably regular mass goers but who might be described as a la carte Christians. When I tell them that it is Christian belief that non Christians are destined for hell, they tell me not to be ridiculous. It’s only extremists that would take this view (and militant atheists that would propagate it).

I was shocked to find what Christians here tend to believe.

Where you really shocked though? Or just surprised?

I recently found out that The Tough Get Going was on the sound track to Jewel of the Nile, not Romancing the Stone. I was surprised, cause I always thought it was the other way round. But I wasn't shocked.

Were you really shocked that some Christians believe we go to hell based on good deeds and others that it is based on saving grace (this seems to be the main stream)

I don't know, I find it hard to understand how someone would be shocked by this. Anyway, this is derailing the thread some what.

iUseVi

^^

Shocked can simply mean "surprised greatly".

antiskeptic

Wicknight wrote: »

Does it? Is that the coin?

My understanding was the coin was do you accept or reject God, not do you think God does or does not exist?

The headline choice is as you say. The sub-elements that go into rendering that choice involve, amongst other things, reason. Pointing out ways that belief in God is rational helps stabilise a choice in a nice, neutral position.

If what God wants is for people to freely choose to accept him, rather than him having to make them accept him (bit like Lost ) it would seem to be sensible that we come to that choice fully aware he exists. Otherwise things get muddled.

Of course I could be wrong in my understanding of what God wants.

As explained before, the balance was tilted abit by the fact that you haven't got free will in order to freely choose him. Therefore he's compensated for the out of balance by taking up the pull side of the tug-o-war. Both of you are pulling on either end of the rope. Either he'll let go ...and your natures desire to pull into sin will tip you over into eternal damnation. Or he'll hang on and drag you over the line and into his arms.

It all depends on how hard and for how long your will is prepared resist. He could ensure you get dragged over. But he won't force you against your will. At least not beyond a certain measure.

But that doesn't matter. That isn't the choice, is it? Satan sees God as light and him as dark, but that doesn't matter to him, he chooses dark because he is egotistical and selfish.

I don't think satan see's God at all. God communicating with a personhood isn't the same as that person being fully in God's presence.

If the choice is to choose good over bad, to choose light over darkness, to choose righteousness over selfishness, to choose God over Satan, you surely need that choice laid out clearly in front of you.

It is laid out clearly. Your calling something God calls good, "evil" and vice versa, doesn't alter it being what God calls good. Would a rose by any other name....

You'll choose this and that, will have this and that motivation. There will be heart behind what you do and why you do it. And God see's that heart. And judges that heart.

The idea that could would muddy the waters so you can't actually tell what is good or bad seems nonsensical (like I said before, "odd"). What purpose does that serve?

It seems more like a trick. Because God is all powerful he can make good appear bad and bad appear good, but that serves no purpose if God is trying to determine which you will pick.

God likely doesn't mind that you consider him evil for smiting the Midianites (if only for the sake of argument). He can see that the heart driving that response is good - if less informed than it otherwise could be. The fact that a bit more information might cause you to about turn in your view doesn't alter the hearts response you have now. Nor that God see's that response as good (quite aside from his having a different view on the overarching pride that see's fit to judge God)

There won't be any denying he exists, but again that isn't the issue is it?

No. But your sin is. And that won't be denied. Which means you'll have to run to God.

Adam and Eve didn't deny God existed. They still sinned, not because they rationalized that God wasn't real, but they were selfish and didn't listen to him.

Indeed. I wonder whether Adam or Eve (or both) ever got saved. They had a knowledge of one sin committed which might be leveraged into desparate need. Perhaps like me, they required a bit more on their account to crank things up to a suitable level..

You can still choose to do that. The question (to my understanding the only question) is will you do that and be like Eve or Satan, aware of God but rejecting his authority, or will you choose not to, will you choose to accept him.

They, pre-sin weren't in the same boat as us with respect to choice. They had free will and had no conscience. Comparing their choice and our choice is apples and pears territory.

But again that isn't the issue is it? Satan knows who God is. He still rejects him out of his own arrogance.

The issue of ability to accept/reject is God sustained. Satan isn't permitted the ability to accept God - he rejects God because that is all he knows - he is captive to evil, a one-trick pony (with all kinds of ways to kick though). He rejects because God has cut him off in that state. The wind blew and his face stayed that way..

I'm not following the logic that once we know that God exists we won't choose to reject him. Don't you continue to choose to sin even though you know God exists?

Try to keep the terminology constant and the logic will flow.

Once you see God is the issue at large. Seeing God fully isn't the same as knowing God exists which is seeing God (as Paul puts it) "through a glass darkly". As if with shades on..

Once you start retreating from the absolute of a face to face with God (before you'll decide) you might as well retreat to the mechanism he's provided. It can take account of elements you can't be aware of. No mechanism you can think of could hope to achieve the same. In that regard you might agree that you too are a bit of a one trick pony. You've the rational card to play ...and that's about it.

That is some what nonsensical. God is all about choice and free will. Making me crumple in a heart beat would be nonsensical to the choice God is presenting to me.

Which is why you don't get presented with a choice that way. It's not so much that God would chose to crumple you. But it's the nature of things that stepping in front of an oncoming train will produce damage. There's no reason for him to stop - he's God and can't not be God.

He doesn't crush our free will with his gaze at the moment, there is no reason he would have to after we died either.

The reason we're not crushed is that he keeps his distance. Consider him like the sun and you'll be on the road to a decent analogy. You're in the dark. I've shades on.