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

lmaopml

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.

Hi dvpower,

I presume you're coming from a Catholic background? In essence, what you were told is in fact wrong, in so far as Catholic dogma is concerned. While it is perfectly possible for people outside of the Catholic church to be 'saved' as stated in the Catechism. We believe in salvation firstly through baptism as a Christian, but that one can fall from grace by sin, and be restored by being truely sorry and turning from sin, in other words, it's a working relationship.... In the Catholic church we don't believe that deeds alone are enough, one has got to have 'faith' to receive grace...

However, as was alluded to earlier ( I know this board is not predominantly Catholic ) we also believe in the dogma of 'purgatory'. This would tie into Wicknights earlier questions...We believe we die and get judged and are either bound for heaven or hell, but that some go through a process of purging in order to enter heaven. Jesus tells us in the bible that some sins can neither be forgiven in this life or in the next, which implies that some sins can, in fact, be forgiven in the next life.

This view is not a particularly 'extremist', it's Catholicism 101, however I understand that a lot of people come and go from the faith without really knowing exactly why they 'do' things which is sad......However, I genuinly believe that they too have every chance of being saved, afterall only God above can judge the heart of a man properly...

Hope this helps..

antiskeptic

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.

The Christians here would tend to hold that Christianity in Ireland (as in America now) is largely cultural. That is to say: most Christians aren't ... er.. Christians.

It might interest you to know that all world religions and cults - bar Christian Christianity (:)) - assign a "positive afterlife outcome" according to the work you do.

All religions but one...

antiskeptic

iUseVi wrote: »

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

What did you expect? That God demand that you believe in something you have no/insufficient evidence for?

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.

No worries. Your feeling "bad" is something for God to work with. Worry about the day when you stop feeling bad.

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

In what way were you worrying about your sins might I ask?

I worry about mine because I'd prefer to be without the bad feeling that comes from sinning. If I wasn't to worry about them then I'd be free of having to feel bad.Which wouldn't strike me as something I'd want. I mean, do you want to stop feeling bad for being selfish or greedy or spiteful? Or would you prefer that the feeling of badness remain attaching to such things?

As a kind of warning sign/restraint on you.

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.

Nor me. God won't force you to love him. You'll either love him voluntarily of you'll be cast into Hell.

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.

Hell is amongst other things the state of being that attaches to those who reject God. In rejecting God they have removed from them (it is being suggested) the image of God in which they were made. No relationality, no creativity, no joy, no love, no wonder, happiness.. all things we are because he is.

Sounds like hell to me.

You can't reject God whilst at the same time retaining God. That would be illogical having your cake territory..

Then there is punishment for wrong doing. You do accept the principle that wrongdoing be punished?

JimiTime

antiskeptic wrote: »

Would you accept that mankind is born dead to God through Adams sin.

Yes, man is born spiritually dead.

And that Adam died on the day he ate of the fruit - just as God promised he would.

Yes, spiritually.

And that through Christ we can be resurrected to new life (life which starts the moment we are born again)?

No, you are conflating 2 different sections of theology.

1. To be born again in spirit. AND
2. The resurrection of the dead.

If you are born spiritually dead, then there is nothing to resurrect, which is why its called being 'born'.

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

Not so. Resurrection to eternal life thanks to Gods merciful act of forgiveness through Jesus Christ is the gift. The wicked will also be resurrected at the time of judgement, but not recieve Gods mercy.

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.

The idea of 'hell' being simply 'existance without God' is to my knowledge simply a theory for those who believe the bible definately says that 'hell' is a concious existance, but don't quite agree that its a place of fire and brimstone.

Also, the 'choice' has nothing to do with it. God revealed in his law, the scales of Justice. Eye for eye, tooth for tooth. Its why we needed Jesus to save us, i.e. the second Adam. Moses couldn't do it, Abraham, Elijah, David etc. Why not? Because none of these men were Adams equivalent, so such balance could not be restored.

Now, a man 'born in a fallen state' who sins, lives for 70 years and dies. How does justice occur if that man is kept conciously suffering for eternity? What purpose does it serve?

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

Absolutely. I wholeheartedly agree. I hate this idea that is sometimes propagated about him being this fluffy sentimental softy.

We are created eternal (although spend a portion of that in time).

Could you expand on this? Where is the basis for this theology, and does the notion that we were created to live forever make us immortal? Or is our eternity based on our relationship with God?

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.

Firstly, what do you mean by us being eternal?
secondly, if we are, does that mean we 'cannot' die? If it does, we are immortal, if it doesn't then God chooses if we have eternal life or not.

Also, bring the whole purpose, justice and the nature of God back into the equation, and there is still inconsistancy if you hold to the notion of an eternity of sufferring.

furiousox

God won't force you to love him. You'll either love him voluntarily of you'll be cast into Hell.


Ha-ha....."Love me or else!!??"
Sounds a bit of a bully to me, thanks but I'll pass...

iUseVi

antiskeptic wrote: »

What did you expect? That God demand that you believe in something you have no/insufficient evidence for?

No worries. Your feeling "bad" is something for God to work with. Worry about the day when you stop feeling bad.

Yes, because apparently I'm going to hell for not believing on current evidence.

antiskeptic wrote: »

In what way were you worrying about your sins might I ask?

I worry about mine because I'd prefer to be without the bad feeling that comes from sinning. If I wasn't to worry about them then I'd be free of having to feel bad.Which wouldn't strike me as something I'd want. I mean, do you want to stop feeling bad for being selfish or greedy or spiteful? Or would you prefer that the feeling of badness remain attaching to such things?

As a kind of warning sign/restraint on you.

Maybe "worry" is the wrong word. I don't like to leave things "up in the air" or unresolved. If I felt I did something wrong (stole, say) I would think about it for a while until it was resolved.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Nor me. God won't force you to love him. You'll either love him voluntarily of you'll be cast into Hell.

That bold bit makes no sense to me. Either I love him or I go to hell? How is that not being forced to love him? Thats the very definition of extortion. (Working on the assumption that no one would like eternal torture.) A truly loving god would not torture you if you didn't love him! Think about it! He would just let you go. There is just no way that you can work Hell or torture into true love. Would you ever allow anyone you loved to be tortured? In any situation?

antiskeptic wrote: »

Hell is amongst other things the state of being that attaches to those who reject God. In rejecting God they have removed from them (it is being suggested) the image of God in which they were made. No relationality, no creativity, no joy, no love, no wonder, happiness.. all things we are because he is.

Sounds like hell to me.

You can't reject God whilst at the same time retaining God. That would be illogical having your cake territory..

Anything god removes from me would be his doing not mine. We are into blackmail territory again. "I'll give you this pony, but only if you promise never to love anyone but me...."

antiskeptic wrote: »

Then there is punishment for wrong doing. You do accept the principle that wrongdoing be punished?

Nope. I don't accept this. Not all wrongdoing should be punished. There are situations; for example in a loving relationship where "wrongdoings" should not be punished. If my partner gets in a rage and scratches my car in anger, should I then go and smash their stuff, to "punish" them? Of course not. That's just immature. Silly example but I hope you get the point. In a loving relationship "wrongdoings" can be forgiven without need for retribution or punishment.

antiskeptic

furiousox wrote: »

God won't force you to love him. You'll either love him voluntarily of you'll be cast into Hell.


Ha-ha....."Love me or else!!??"
Sounds a bit of a bully to me, thanks but I'll pass...

Hi..

Welcome to the Christianity forum..

Zombrex

antiskeptic wrote: »

Pointing out ways that belief in God is rational helps stabilise a choice in a nice, neutral position.

Exactly. So what is the issue with doing this after you have died and are fully rationally aware of God's existence?

Then the choice is genuinely accept or reject God, not does God exist, and if he does do you accept him and if you he doesn't would you still accept him or would you reject him if he doesn't exist but not if he does or vice verse

As I said, it is muddled as is.

It is easy to understand the position that someone would take where they say they would accept God if they thought he existed but they have rationally determined he doesn't, and thus see no reason to accept him.

That person is having the issue of whether God exists or not muddle his answer to whether he accepts or rejects him, something that is not clarified till after dead when it is too late.

I see no purpose to that from God's point of view.

antiskeptic wrote: »

I don't think satan see's God at all.

Really? I think that is a some what unsupported position given what the Bible says about Satan, who is described as the brightest of God's angels

When Satan rejected God he would have surely been fully aware of God.

antiskeptic wrote: »

God communicating with a personhood isn't the same as that person being fully in God's presence.

Well that is some what of a different issue. I'm not making any assumptions about how God would communicate to the person after death.

It seems some what illogical to assume he would have to extend his full grace, thus overwhelming the person's free choice, simply because the person was dead.

antiskeptic wrote: »

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....

It is not laid out clearly because (as you seemed to admit) there are strong rational reasons to think that God doesn't actually exist in the first place.

Thus, as I said above, the situation where a person does not get to the choice to accept or reject God at all because they don't think he exists in the first place.

You can't make that choice until the other choices are eliminated.

antiskeptic wrote: »

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.

I don't think such an interpretation is supported by the Bible. If it was Christian would be some what unnecessary, God would simply look at your heart and see if you were good or not. In which case choosing anything would be irrelevant. You would just either be a good person or a bad person.

But we are probably going to get into a "true" Christian interpretation here.

antiskeptic wrote: »

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

Which you might do if you believed he existed, but not to if you didn't.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Indeed. I wonder whether Adam or Eve (or both) ever got saved.

That is not really the point. The point is that they knew God exists and yet still rejected him. As did Satan.

antiskeptic wrote: »

They, pre-sin weren't in the same boat as us with respect to choice. They had free will and had no conscience.

What are you basing that on?

Is that Biblical, that Adam and Eve had no conscience?

antiskeptic wrote: »

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).

Again that doesn't seem Biblical

Satan was an angel, the brightest of all angels. He did accept God and then rejected him.

No offense Antiskeptic but you seem to hold some quite peculiar views of Christianity that I've not encountered before and which contradict mainstream views I have encountered.

Which some what makes discussing this with you some what irrelevant, as I seem to be discussing Antiskeptic-ism as much as Christianity.

So perhaps I'll wait and see how much is correlated by other Christian posters.

antiskeptic

JimiTime wrote: »

No, you are conflating 2 different sections of theology.

1. To be born again in spirit. AND
2. The resurrection of the dead.

If you are born spiritually dead, then there is nothing to resurrect, which is why its called being 'born'.

The point is quite narrow: dead but conscious. We died to God 'in Adam' and were raised to life 'in Christ'. Dying and being raised can be said to be resurrection.

Romans 5:15 ... For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more..

Colossians 3:1 Since, then, you have been raised with Christ, set your hearts on things above, where Christ is seated at the right hand of God.

Not so. Resurrection to eternal life thanks to Gods merciful act of forgiveness through Jesus Christ is the gift. The wicked will also be resurrected at the time of judgement, but not recieve Gods mercy.

Yes, but those resurrected to eternal life then already have eternal life now. If I will never be separated from God from the moment of my rebirth then I have eternal life. The resurrection then involving my body - not me.

The idea of 'hell' being simply 'existance without God' is to my knowledge simply a theory for those who believe the bible definately says that 'hell' is a concious existance, but don't quite agree that its a place of fire and brimstone.

I wouldn't say Hell is merely existance without God. It's existance without the life of God - which even sinful man currently enjoys in his being made in the image of God. Which is not to say the wrath of God can't be poured out in other ways.

I see no particular reason to suppose Hell consisting of elevated temperatures

Also, the 'choice' has nothing to do with it. God revealed in his law, the scales of Justice. Eye for eye, tooth for tooth. Its why we needed Jesus to save us, i.e. the second Adam. Moses couldn't do it, Abraham, Elijah, David etc. Why not? Because none of these men were Adams equivalent, so such balance could not be restored.

If choice had nothing to do with it then there wouldn't be plain scriptures tying in the reason for damnation to wilful expression against the things of God. 1 Thessalonians 2:10 springs to mind. "they perish because they refuse to love the truth (God) and so be saved".

The choice has to do with grasping the provision God has supplied so that we can avoid his wrath. It doesn't diminish God being the one to provide a way nor his being the one whose work might result in our grasping that provision.

Could you expand on this? Where is the basis for this theology, and does the notion that we were created to live forever make us immortal? Or is our eternity based on our relationship with God?

Firstly, what do you mean by us being eternal?

secondly, if we are, does that mean we 'cannot' die? If it does, we are immortal, if it doesn't then God chooses if we have eternal life or not.

The word used is eternal. Not time-never-ending. Whilst the nature of eternity isn't known it seems clear from scripture that we were created in a realm outside time ("I knew you before I formed you in your mothers womb").

The argument against eternal conscious suffering is that it doesn't balance with 70 odd years of sin. Which I consider to be unwarranted mixing of units. As soon as we correct the units then eternal consciouse suffering doesn't appear as ill-fitting.

Also, bring the whole purpose, justice and the nature of God back into the equation, and there is still inconsistancy if you hold to the notion of an eternity of sufferring.

What would that inconsistancy be? The nature of God has demonstrably been (amongst other things) furious wrath and hatred against sin.

Soul Winner

StormWarrior wrote: »

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?

I never said that it would? Are you confusing something I said earlier with something else per chance?

StormWarrior wrote: »

So, basically God can torture people for eternity, just because he can.

Well yes I suppose He could if He wanted to, but that is not what's happening is it? You actually deserve God's wrath on you because of your sinful (fallen short of His perfect standard) condition not just your sinful acts. Remaining in your sinful condition is what brings God's wrath on you. But He has provided a way to escape it at great cost to Himself. That you don't want to accept that is a problem that you have not God. You either get with God's program or you fry, simple as. You can shove how much you disagree with how God operates in His face for your whole life and it will not change one single thing in relation to what He has already declared in His Word. You're the one in need of Him, He is not in need of you, He has offered everyone grace and peace and the spirit that raised Jesus from the dead to dwell in us for simple daily faith in His promises. So when it comes to give account of yourself before Him and it is revealed that you did not avail of this offer then there will be nothing for it sadly. You stand condemned for not availing of the covering for your sins that Christ's death provides.

StormWarrior wrote: »

It's not because he's being righteous or anything,

Actually He is being righteous. His judgments are just. He could send us all to hell now if He wanted and still be righteous and faithful to His own nature and Word.

StormWarrior wrote: »

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.

Not the same. The biologist and parent do not - by virtue of originating - own their creations and they cannot give life to to them, they can only procreated or clone. As the source, creator and giver of all life, God alone has the right to take it back to Himself and judge those who do not live according to His will. You can hate the idea of such a God all you like but that does nothing to the truthfulness of the situation. The only hope people have who hate a God like this is that He doesn't exist. But if He does then too bad. I advise people to get on the right side of God's judgment before its too late, get behind the covering provided in Christ's atoning death. If you want eternal life then trust Him, He'll give it to you, if your not bothered to do that simply little thing, then don't bitch and moan about it when you're being thrown into the lake.

StormWarrior wrote: »

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.

Well thankfully that is not how He is.

dvpower

Wicknight wrote: »

Where you really shocked though? Or just surprised?

[...]

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.

I was both shocked and surprised. Obviously I'm no longer surprised, but I'm still shocked. It seems to be unjust in the extreme and contrary to the attributes that are normally associated with Christians (charity, humility, empathy ...).

lmaopml wrote: »

This view is not a particularly 'extremist', it's Catholicism 101, however I understand that a lot of people come and go from the faith without really knowing exactly why they 'do' things which is sad......However, I genuinly believe that they too have every chance of being saved, afterall only God above can judge the heart of a man properly...

It may be basic Catholicism, but condemning anyone to hell (especially a fire and brimstone hell) seems to me to be an extreme position to take. Condemning otherwise good people to hell essentially because they chose the wrong religion or because they genuinely weren't convinced of the claims of religion seems to me to be out there on the far edges on extremism.

antiskeptic wrote: »

The Christians here would tend to hold that Christianity in Ireland (as in America now) is largely cultural. That is to say: most Christians aren't ... er.. Christians.

Yeah. I've been learning that real Christianity is far more an exclusive club than I had thought.
It seems that God has designed an obstical course that most of the participants fail to complete. I wonder why.

antiskeptic wrote: »

It might interest you to know that all world religions and cults - bar Christian Christianity (:)) - assign a "positive afterlife outcome" according to the work you do

All religions but one...

That does interest me. Do you have their phone numbers?;)

antiskeptic

iUseVi wrote: »

Yes, because apparently I'm going to hell for not believing on current evidence.

I wouldn't agree with that. You're currently on your way to hell because that is the default destination for everyone ever born. All sin because they are born sinners. And God has no use for sinners so to the scrapheap they must go.

Unless..

Maybe "worry" is the wrong word. I don't like to leave things "up in the air" or unresolved. If I felt I did something wrong (stole, say) I would think about it for a while until it was resolved.

What way would you resolve it. Assign it to the category of 'mistake' perhaps?

That bold bit makes no sense to me. Either I love him or I go to hell? How is that not being forced to love him? Thats the very definition of extortion. (Working on the assumption that no one would like eternal torture.)

It's only be extortion if you believed God existed 100%. You can't be subject to blackmail by something you don't believe exists. And if you came to believe he exists it would be because he worked to bring you to him - without insisting that you arrive.

Consider him a fisherman and you a fish. If he lands you it will be because of his work. But he permits that you escape. If you want it bad enough.

A truly loving god would not torture you if you didn't love him! Think about it! He would just let you go. There is just no way that you can work Hell or torture into true love. Would you ever allow anyone you loved to be tortured? In any situation?

God is love won't be present in Hell. God is wrath will be. There is such a thing as unrequited love. Perhaps that's what God is love suffers forever on account of those who won't love him back

Anything god removes from me would be his doing not mine. We are into blackmail territory again. "I'll give you this pony, but only if you promise never to love anyone but me...."

I'll point you again to the problem of being blackmailed by something you don't believe exists.

Nope. I don't accept this. Not all wrongdoing should be punished. There are situations; for example in a loving relationship where "wrongdoings" should not be punished. If my partner gets in a rage and scratches my car in anger, should I then go and smash their stuff, to "punish" them? Of course not. That's just immature. Silly example but I hope you get the point. In a loving relationship "wrongdoings" can be forgiven without need for retribution or punishment.

There is no loving relationship between you and God. You don't even believe he exists.


____

If not punished then it can be forgiven - as you did your girlfriend. Punishment means you pay the price for your offence. Forgiveness means that the offended pays the price for your offence

God offers either to you. Either you pay for your sin. Or he pays for your sin.

____

But you do agree that wrongdoing deserves punishment - whatever about the offended choosing to forgive?

Memnoch

I know many people who swear that actually, it's all non-muslims who will be going to hell. How do the Christians here feel about that?

I'd pay top money for front row seats at the post apocalyptic god off. Allah vs God. Jesus vs Mohammad, with the fate of all respective followers in the balance. Or is there some kind of compromise here I'm not aware of?

Zombrex

Memnoch wrote: »

I know many people who swear that actually, it's all non-muslims who will be going to hell. How do the Christians here feel about that?

Most Muslims actually hold a pretty similar view to Christians, that those who know and choose to reject Islam will end up in hell but those who are not aware of it won't necessarily. Muslims also believe that God can simply forgive some people (where as Christians believe that Jesus was necessary for this) and that God can choose to forgive those with faith.

Also there are passages in the Quran that talk about Christians and Jews who truly love God being rewarded for their faith and love.

iUseVi

antiskeptic, I'm assuming he exists for the sake of this discussion. That was an epic dodge right there on a technicality. Please re-answer those points from this viewpoint. My points still deserve attention I think. Assuming god exists please.

antiskeptic wrote: »

If not punished then it can be forgiven - as you did your girlfriend. Punishment means you pay the price for your offence. Forgiveness means that the offended pays the price for your offence

God offers either to you. Either you pay for your sin. Or he pays for your sin.

But you do agree that wrongdoing deserves punishment - whatever about the offended choosing to forgive?

There is a third option, whether you like it or not. One where no one pays for the wrongdoing. Me forgiving my partner has no effect on me. I am not "punished".

No, once again I absolutely do not agree that all wrongdoing deserves punishment. I choose to forgive not because I'm super awesome, but precisely because I don't think they deserve punishment. Someone who makes a mistake is not "evil" in my view, but simply human.

Memnoch

Wicknight wrote: »

Most Muslims actually hold a pretty similar view to Christians, that those who know and choose to reject Islam will end up in hell but those who are not aware of it won't necessarily. Muslims also believe that God can simply forgive some people (where as Christians believe that Jesus was necessary for this) and that God can choose to forgive those with faith.

Also there are passages in the Quran that talk about Christians and Jews who truly love God being rewarded for their faith and love.

Well, I doubt there's many christians who don't "know," Islam, but I guess that depends on what you constitute as the definition of knowing.

Of course if you really want to play it safe, you're better of being both Christian AND Muslim, and just to be extra safe in case both faiths happen to have it wrong a Hindu as well so you don't end up spending the rest of eternity as a cockroach or something.

I guess that leaves Atheists and Agnostics out in the cold a little bit. Though you could always convert if you see judgement coming. Live as an Atheist but die as a Christian/Muslim = the best of both worlds?

Zombrex

Memnoch wrote: »

Well, I doubt there's many christians who don't "know," Islam, but I guess that depends on what you constitute as the definition of knowing.

Of course if you really want to play it safe, you're better of being both Christian AND Muslim, and just to be extra safe in case both faiths happen to have it wrong a Hindu as well so you don't end up spending the rest of eternity as a cockroach or something.

I guess that leaves Atheists and Agnostics out in the cold a little bit. Though you could always convert if you see judgement coming. Live as an Atheist but die as a Christian/Muslim = the best of both worlds?

Pascal's wager.

Unfortunately I couldn't choose to believe in God, any more than I could choose to believe in the aether

StormWarrior

Soul Winner wrote: »

I never said that it would? Are you confusing something I said earlier with something else per chance?

I asked: 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?

You answered: 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.

Now, I never suggested that you should side with them and suffer their fate. The question I keep asking but never get answered is: How is it making you suffer if those souls are destroyed or sent somewhere other than hell?

Soul Winner wrote: »

Well yes I suppose He could if He wanted to, but that is not what's happening is it? You actually deserve God's wrath on you because of your sinful (fallen short of His perfect standard) condition not just your sinful acts. Remaining in your sinful condition is what brings God's wrath on you.

Do I deserve it? I don't agree. Firstly, if as Christians believe, I was born fallen anyway, how is that my fault? Why should I inherit sin because of Adam and Eve? Is it ok for you to be sent to prison because your great grandfather robbed a bank? And anyway, even if it was my own "sins" alone that I'm being judged for, I still don't see why I should suffer for them. I did not enter any agreement with God, saying, "I agree to try and live up to your standards and will accept punishment if I fail." I haven't reneged on any contract because I haven't made one. I did not sign up for this, why is it ok for this god to bully people in this way?

Soul Winner wrote: »

You can hate the idea of such a God all you like but that does nothing to the truthfulness of the situation. The only hope people have who hate a God like this is that He doesn't exist. But if He does then too bad. I advise people to get on the right side of God's judgment before its too late, get behind the covering provided in Christ's atoning death. If you want eternal life then trust Him, He'll give it to you, if your not bothered to do that simply little thing, then don't bitch and moan about it when you're being thrown into the lake.

So you accept God out of fear of the consequences if you don't? Why would anyone want to spend eternity with this being?

Soul Winner wrote: »

Well thankfully that is not how He is.

Seems to me like this is exactly how he/it is.

PDN

dvpower wrote: »

Condemning otherwise good people to hell essentially because they chose the wrong religion or because they genuinely weren't convinced of the claims of religion seems to me to be out there on the far edges on extremism.

You know, I'm really starting to find it very tiresome that some posters persist in misrepresenting the beliefs of Christians no matter how often or how patiently we explain them.

People are not condemned to hell because they refused to believe something, or because they chose the wrong religion. They are condemned to hell because they chose to commit sin. They chose to lie, cheat, steal and be selfish.

The Christian Gospel is offered as a totally undeserved escape route - but it is plainly nonsensical to thereby claim that people are condemned for not believing something.

A simple analogy might help illustrate this. Two men drive their cars at 100mph and get pulled over by the Guards. One of them is a diplomat, and therefore has diplomatic immunity. The other is a plumber, has no diplomatic immunity and gets a fine and penalty points. Now, he may claim that he was fined for being a plumber - but that would be an obvious lie. He was fined for driving too fast, his being a plumber rather than a diplomat may have barred him from sharing in the other guys escape route (diplomatic immunity), but it is not the reason why he is being punished.

iUseVi

PDN wrote: »

People are not condemned to hell because they refused to believe something, or because they chose the wrong religion. They are condemned to hell because they chose to commit sin. They chose to lie, cheat, steal and be selfish.

So if I don't lie, cheat or steal but I don't believe in god I don't go to hell? Hypothetically speaking?

PDN

iUseVi wrote: »

So if I don't lie, cheat or steal but I don't believe in god I don't go to hell? Hypothetically speaking?

You think I was giving a comprehensive list?

If you don't sin you don't go to hell - very hypothetically speaking (I like the way you skipped 'being selfish').

dvpower

PDN wrote: »

You know, I'm really starting to find it very tiresome that some posters persist in misrepresenting the beliefs of Christians no matter how often or how patiently we explain them.

I'm not misrepresenting anything. I'm trying to understand what the Christian position is on non Christians going to hell.

PDN wrote: »

People are not condemned to hell because they refused to believe something, or because they chose the wrong religion. They are condemned to hell because they chose to commit sin. They chose to lie, cheat, steal and be selfish.

So, is it the Christian position that non believers can avoid hell?

PDN wrote: »

The Christian Gospel is offered as a totally undeserved escape route - but it is plainly nonsensical to thereby claim that people are condemned for not believing something.

How could one take an escape route when one doesn't accept that it is one? Are there other escape routes?

PDN wrote: »

A simple analogy might help illustrate this. Two men drive their cars at 100mph and get pulled over by the Guards. One of them is a diplomat, and therefore has diplomatic immunity. The other is a plumber, has no diplomatic immunity and gets a fine and penalty points. Now, he may claim that he was fined for being a plumber - but that would be an obvious lie. He was fined for driving too fast, his being a plumber rather than a diplomat may have barred him from sharing in the other guys escape route (diplomatic immunity), but it is not the reason why he is being punished.

That didn't help at all. I know I'm at risk of misrepresenting it, but it says to me that as long as you are on the right side, justice doesn't matter.

dvpower

PDN wrote: »

You think I was giving a comprehensive list?

If you don't sin you don't go to hell - very hypothetically speaking (I like the way you skipped 'being selfish').

Is not believing in God a sin (either directly or indirectly)?

Fanny Cradock

dvpower wrote: »

Is not believing in God a sin (either directly or indirectly)?

I don't believe so.

iUseVi

PDN wrote: »

You think I was giving a comprehensive list?

If you don't sin you don't go to hell - very hypothetically speaking (I like the way you skipped 'being selfish').

Any list you give is bound to be incomplete; unless you know the mind of God. The way I see it, it is impossible to avoid sin. Which presents a problem. How are we free to choose something which is impossible to avoid? And if we are not free to choose then how is it our fault if we sin? This is what I struggle with.

Zombrex

iUseVi wrote: »

So if I don't lie, cheat or steal but I don't believe in god I don't go to hell? Hypothetically speaking?

Technically if you don't sin you don't get to hell. But because of the Fall you can't exist as a human without sinning. It is like Rev Lovejoy says in the Simpsons, technically we can't go to the bathroom

The only person who never sinned was Jesus.

iUseVi

Wicknight wrote: »

Technically if you don't sin you don't get to hell. But because of the Fall you can't exist as a human without sinning. It is like Rev Lovejoy says in the Simpsons, technically we can't go to the bathroom

The only person who never sinned was Jesus.

I've just posted something on another thread about this. As much as I hate to be hijacking two threads, this really bothers me. If just by existing and breathing and living - I am sinning, how can I possibly be to blame for this?

PDN

dvpower wrote: »

So, is it the Christian position that non believers can avoid hell?

If they were to live a sinless life - then yes.

Other than that, you will find disagreement amnong various Christians, including those who post in this forum.

Some of them will say that non-believers cannot avoid hell. Some will say that they can. Others (like me) will say we don't know. And at least one will tell you that there's no hell.

How could one take an escape route when one doesn't accept that it is one?

You probably won't. But that is irrelevant to the point I was making. People are punished in hell for the sins they committed, not for failing to believe something.

That didn't help at all. I know I'm at risk of misrepresenting it, but it says to me that as long as you are on the right side, justice doesn't matter.

No, it says that Person A has no grounds for complaint if they receive the due and deserved punishment for their transgressions. This remains true even if Person B has access to an undeserved pardon.

PDN

dvpower wrote: »

Is not believing in God a sin (either directly or indirectly)?

I think that depends on the circumstances. There is such a thing as wilful unbelief - where people choose to believe something because it suits them. That, IMHO, is sinful.

But then there is non-belief (maybe where someone never even heard of the concept of a god) or honest unbelief (where someone is genuinely intellectually unable to accept God's existence). I personally wouldn't see either of these as being sinning.

PDN

iUseVi wrote: »

I've just posted something on another thread about this. As much as I hate to be hijacking two threads, this really bothers me. If just by existing and breathing and living - I am sinning, how can I possibly be to blame for this?

Unfortunately this is what happens when an atheist purports to be stating a Christian position. You have a problem with Wicknightianism, not Christianity as I understand it.

Babies exist and live and breath without saying. You sin when you choose to do stuff that is wrong.