Am I going to hell?

Zombrex · 08-07-2013 09:56AM

martinedwards wrote: »

"it would seem very odd" to be allowed in if you denied it's existance and the existance of the host too!

Why would God, the omnipotent creator of the universe, give a hoot if you believed in him or not? Belief or non-belief in a god has no moral value either way. Surely the only thing a god who cares about morality would care about is whether you treated other people with kindness.

On the other hand a 1st century cult leader who wishes to be treated as a god would very much care if you believed he was a god or not...

zl1whqvjs75cdy · 08-07-2013 09:59AM

Why does God give a hoot about morality anyway?

SoulandForm · 08-07-2013 10:37AM

welkin wrote: »

I'm a non-believer but I live a moral life.

Supposing I'm completely wrong and I meet God when I die.
Can he send me to an eternity of miserable suffering because I never prayed to him?

The Pharisees lived very moral lives and believed, at least supposed they did, in a God and we know what Christ said to them.

Look, if anyone reads the Gospel they should be able to see clearly how far they fall away from its Law. Another thing is nearly everyone, no matter how evil believes that they are basically good and moral. Those who would actually see themselves as evil are usually disturbed teenagers or people emotionally and psychologically close to such. Humans are worse at judging themselves objectively.

If very saintly people regarded themselves as vile sinners and one of my work mates who though a man is incredibly vain and gossipy (bad enough in us of the fairer sex but absolutely sickening in a male) regards himself as a "good person" than please excuse my caution in seeing anyone as moral or good on their own word.

hinault · 08-07-2013 12:09PM

silentrust wrote: »

Frankly tayto lover it's actually quite refreshing to see a Christian come and nail their colours to the mast. Most of the Christians I talk to are the liberal CofE types who say that we should interpret such passages allegorically or it'll be alright so long as we repent at the end and so on - the Bible/Talmud/Koran doesn't actually give us that much leeway.

You either play by the rules or it's the steakhouse for you... says our all loving Father in Heaven. :-)

This is why I said Christians are hoisted on their own petard. To be a logically consistent Christian, you have to be a despicable human being, to be a decent human being, you must be an inconsistent Christian.

Can you explained the underlined bit?

wexie · 08-07-2013 12:11PM

I don't know, I'm by no means an expert but it seems to me a most un-Christian thing to do to deny a person, who's lived an otherwise good and moral life, access to heaven purely based on their religion...

Certainly not the kind of God I'd like to believe in.

silentrust · 08-07-2013 02:18PM

hinault wrote: »

Can you explained the underlined bit?

Certainly, provided the Moderator doesn't try to derail us once again -

The question posed in the thread is whether it is possible for a person who is not religious but lives an otherwise morally upright life is destined for hell.

Most modern Christians usually paper over the cracks of their own doctrine by readily agreeing that it doesn't really matter how you live your life so long as you do so in a way loosely consistent with Christian values - mainly the Church of England types with whom I debate regularly.

As such it's difficult to expose the hypocrisy of their belief in God's love, free will etc. as it's not backed up by the threat of eternal hellfire, though you can of course point out the inconsistency in what they say, in that they cherry pick the more altruistic parts of their religion for public consumption and leave the rest.

This is not, however, what their senior religious figures and holy texts say so when you encounter more fundamentalist Christians you can argue with them on the basis of the alleged facts according to the Bible e.g the world was created in six days but what you cannot do is say that they're being inconsistent insofar as they express their religious beliefs - they are quite happy to accept the fact that God's love doesn't extend to non-believers and that the latter will soon be roasting away merrily in the afterlife.

Of course such a notion is morally despicable, and a tad paradoxical but entirely consistent with Christian dogma.

In order to promote a moral way of living without threatening punishment in the hereafter, modern liberal Christians have to ignore large swathes of their holy book as well as the pronouncements of their own clergy - of course as an Atheist I applaud any Christian who dismisses any part of the Bible but of course in being better human beings, they have to be less consistent about their faith.

Hope this makes sense.

tommy2bad · 08-07-2013 02:52PM

silentrust wrote: »

Certainly, provided the Moderator doesn't try to derail us once again -

The question posed in the thread is whether it is possible for a person who is not religious but lives an otherwise morally upright life is destined for hell.

Most modern Christians usually paper over the cracks of their own doctrine by readily agreeing that it doesn't really matter how you live your life so long as you do so in a way loosely consistent with Christian values - mainly the Church of England types with whom I debate regularly.

As such it's difficult to expose the hypocrisy of their belief in God's love, free will etc. as it's not backed up by the threat of eternal hellfire, though you can of course point out the inconsistency in what they say, in that they cherry pick the more altruistic parts of their religion for public consumption and leave the rest.

This is not, however, what their senior religious figures and holy texts say so when you encounter more fundamentalist Christians you can argue with them on the basis of the alleged facts according to the Bible e.g the world was created in six days but what you cannot do is say that they're being inconsistent insofar as they express their religious beliefs - they are quite happy to accept the fact that God's love doesn't extend to non-believers and that the latter will soon be roasting away merrily in the afterlife.

Of course such a notion is morally despicable, and a tad paradoxical but entirely consistent with Christian dogma.

In order to promote a moral way of living without threatening punishment in the hereafter, modern liberal Christians have to ignore large swathes of their holy book as well as the pronouncements of their own clergy - of course as an Atheist I applaud any Christian who dismisses any part of the Bible but of course in being better human beings, they have to be less consistent about their faith.

Hope this makes sense.

Except it doesn't! Their is no inconsistency in a loving God and free will resulting in a sinner receiving the consequences of their sin.
If anything the inconsistency is in the 'God hates people not like us' brigades argument. It might be that instead of engaging with the argument you admire the ones who share your view of what Christianity is and dismiss as inconsistent the version you don't believe in, the Christianity you reject being the one you do believe in.
OK I'm being mischievous but the point remains, you only accept as christian that which you disagree with.

silentrust · 08-07-2013 03:12PM

tommy2bad wrote: »

Except it doesn't! Their is no inconsistency in a loving God and free will resulting in a sinner receiving the consequences of their sin.
If anything the inconsistency is in the 'God hates people not like us' brigades argument. It might be that instead of engaging with the argument you admire the ones who share your view of what Christianity is and dismiss as inconsistent the version you don't believe in, the Christianity you reject being the one you do believe in.
OK I'm being mischievous but the point remains, you only accept as christian that which you disagree with.

...And yet can both people be Christians? I have no doubt that the Spanish Inquisition accepted Jesus as their Lord and Saviour and yet they saw no contradiction between that and sending thousands of "heretics" on their way to meet their maker.

The conflict is one which is caused by viewing that kind of morality in retrospect - it's a subject that Christians avoid as a rule but of course as a non believer I would pick up on it because if you can use a religious text to justify immoral acts then you cannot at the same time claim that it is a template to lead a moral life.

The question here of course though is not so much whether Christians are more moral generally so much as whether they have a better insight than us Atheists as to the entry conditions for Heaven, and indeed Hell.

We've already agreed that the only "sin" in this case is one of omission - a person who on the basis of honest conviction believes the balance of evidence doesn't support the existence of God. This person can be a loving parent, a firm friend, someone who gives their time and money to the poor and needy and yet according to some Christians and not others, is still destined to suffer for all eternity.

So when you say I'm trying to avoid the argument, what I'm really trying to pin down is, do you honestly believe that the OP is indeed going to suffer this fate if he lives an otherwise moral life?

As I already pointed out though, there is a contradiction here insofar as if the answer is yes, God is actually revealed to be quite petty and spiteful. He also fails to provide any kind of reliable way for us to choose amongst the number of religions, each of which once again claim to know what to do and believe to avoid Hell.

Naturally I can resolve this paradox quite easily as I am reasonably certain there is no such thing as God, and any pretensions made by people of faith that they know better than I do how to enter the afterlife are therefore based on a false premise.

The paradox you face as believers, is that if this is your belief than God is revealed to be rather less than loving, and rather foolish if he's real.

martinedwards · 08-07-2013 03:14PM

I LIKE the idea of a God who sets rules and expects people to follow them.

otherwise what's the point of worship at all?

maybe in the world of a big fluffy cuddly God, all the good children will get a hug from the giant bunny, but the God of Heaven says, if I don't know you, you'll be cast out.

even if you have lead what you consider a moral life.

silentrust · 08-07-2013 03:20PM

tommy2bad wrote: »

And again, people are confusing belief with knowledge. Their not the same thing, Knowing something is not the same as believing a thing. You don't require trust to know, you must trust to believe.
The enemy of belief isn't knowledge, it's fear.

I suppose belief in that case would imply an element of doubt?

Cards on the table, it's my very strong belief that there's no God or afterlife but I do admit I could be wrong - when I ask Christians if they could be wrong about Jesus being the Son of God though, I'm told it's different.

There is either a higher power at work than we observe or there is not.

There is either some form of existence after death or there is not.

Praying five times a day, amputating your son's foreskin, not working on Sundays and so on will either make you more likely to go into the Afterlife or not.

So are these a matter of trust or fact? I would say such things are unknowable and given the fact that there's a strong case to say that religion is man-made, that it's certainly not worthy to base your life around them.

bigdirtyjames · 08-07-2013 03:21PM

martinedwards wrote: »

I LIKE the idea of a God who sets rules and expects people to follow them.

otherwise what's the point of worship at all?

maybe in the world of a big fluffy cuddly God, all the good children will get a hug from the giant bunny, but the God of Heaven says, if I don't know you, you'll be cast out.

even if you have lead what you consider a moral life.

The big fluffy God with the bunny seems more realistic than the God you're talking about.

If he doesn't allow me into heaven, I'll be happy enough to remind him that he is responsible for more deaths of decent people that I am, and I'll find another party. Preferably one with big fluffy Gods and bunnies.

08-07-2013 03:23PM

martinedwards wrote: »

I LIKE the idea of a God who sets rules and expects people to follow them.

Sets rules, but doesn't tell them to most of the world. Ask the average person from China or India what the ten commandments are. That's a third of the world's population denied access to heaven, simply because of where they were born.

Not to mention the impossibility of accurately interpreting the meaning of God's rules. You realise that if, say, Catholicism is actually the one true faith, you'd be denied access to heaven?

tommy2bad · 08-07-2013 03:30PM

silentrust wrote: »

...And yet can both people be Christians? I have no doubt that the Spanish Inquisition accepted Jesus as their Lord and Saviour and yet they saw no contradiction between that and sending thousands of "heretics" on their way to meet their maker.
Indeed.
The conflict is one which is caused by viewing that kind of morality in retrospect - it's a subject that Christians avoid as a rule but of course as a non believer I would pick up on it because if you can use a religious text to justify immoral acts then you cannot at the same time claim that it is a template to lead a moral life.
Most thinking Christians don't claim it's a template for anything. It's a collection of stories about God and mans relationship.
The question here of course though is not so much whether Christians are more moral generally so much as whether they have a better insight than us Atheists as to the entry conditions for Heaven, and indeed Hell.
Agreed.
We've already agreed that the only "sin" in this case is one of omission - a person who on the basis of honest conviction believes the balance of evidence doesn't support the existence of God. This person can be a loving parent, a firm friend, someone who gives their time and money to the poor and needy and yet according to some Christians and not others, is still destined to suffer for all eternity.

So when you say I'm trying to avoid the argument, what I'm really trying to pin down is, do you honestly believe that the OP is indeed going to suffer this fate if he lives an otherwise moral life?
I'v already stated that I don't believe that, further I'd say I have no idea what his/her fate is.
As I already pointed out though, there is a contradiction here insofar as if the answer is yes, God is actually revealed to be quite petty and spiteful. He also fails to provide any kind of reliable way for us to choose amongst the number of religions, each of which once again claim to know what to do and believe to avoid Hell.
So therefore the answer 'yes' is wrong, simples.

Naturally I can resolve this paradox quite easily as I am reasonably certain there is no such thing as God, and any pretensions made by people of faith that they know better than I do how to enter the afterlife are therefore based on a false premise.
Gordian knot cut with Ochams razor, I like it
The paradox you face as believers, is that if this is your belief than God is revealed to be rather less than loving, and rather foolish if he's real.

Again it's only a paradox if 'your' (and some misguided Christians) version of God is the one you subscribe to. Reject that vision and the problem goes away.

tommy2bad · 08-07-2013 03:38PM

Addendum to my previous post.;
Reading my reply I see I forgot to mention that the problem only goes away for Christians. Atheists are still left with the problem but now reduced to Pascals wager.
I can't really offer a satisfactory answer to someone who asks "if I live a moral life but don't believe in God, do I go to hell anyway?' other than I don't know, but I do know that if you live a moral life and believe in God you go to heaven.

K.Flyer · 08-07-2013 03:52PM

martinedwards wrote: »

I LIKE the idea of a God who sets rules and expects people to follow them.

otherwise what's the point of worship at all?.

Explain to me how your version of God is the right one and how is it better than that of others.

SoulandForm · 08-07-2013 03:57PM

tommy2bad wrote: »

Addendum to my previous post.;
Reading my reply I see I forgot to mention that the problem only goes away for Christians. Atheists are still left with the problem but now reduced to Pascals wager.
I can't really offer a satisfactory answer to someone who asks "if I live a moral life but don't believe in God, do I go to hell anyway?' other than I don't know, but I do know that if you live a moral life and believe in God you go to heaven.

How do you know? Couldnt disbelief in God be evidence of immorality?

Gumbi · 08-07-2013 04:03PM

SoulandForm wrote: »

How do you know? Couldnt disbelief in God be evidence of immorality?

Lol. Get off your high horse... Let's not even go there.

silentrust · 08-07-2013 04:09PM

tommy2bad wrote: »

Again it's only a paradox if 'your' (and some misguided Christians) version of God is the one you subscribe to. Reject that vision and the problem goes away.

I'm not sure I'd agree that the Bible is seen as a collection of stories about God and man's relationship solely by most Christians but you do put it very poetically!

Unfortunately answering "no" doesn't give you much wiggle room either. It's the claim of every major religion that accepting their particular faith is the one way into Heaven - with Christianity of course this is further subdivided between Catholics and Protestants so it's not only important to be a Christian but the right kind of Christian - some of whom do, of course, in a bid to seem tolerant and fair-minded say that they don't believe people should suffer forever for having beliefs different to their own but we've discussed this kind.

So let's come back to the Fundamentalist Bible-Bashing Fire and Brimstone Christian then who says that at the very least you must believe in God to enter heaven and hell awaits those who do not, in accordance with their particular scripture (all of which, as we've discussed, make this claim) - they are very consistent as Christians in that their beliefs reflect more closely Christian doctrine.

Nevertheless it strains credibility that their loving yet vengeful God has chosen them to be our moral arbiters - we're talking here about the kind of people who in the name of their faith commit atrocities here on Earth, the worst of them including blowing up Abortion clinics, burning Harry Potter books, refusing to allow their children to be taught Sex Ed, attacking Muslims, pressuring women to be mothers and not pursue a career and so on and so forth.

Once again it is entirely possible to find Biblical justifications for acts such as these, which is why I said that a true Christian would actually be a rather despicable human being, as are of course the people who do the above things.

Yet, we have to accept that Christians have some kind of prescience regarding what God wants and unless we join them, we can look forward to hell, no matter how despicable the action.

My reasons for not being a Christian don't have much to do with the above in all honesty - I don't follow your faith as I believe it's not true but as Christians, this is something I do think you have to face up to as following your doctrine is by no means a template for living a moral life.

silentrust · 08-07-2013 04:12PM

SoulandForm wrote: »

How do you know? Couldnt disbelief in God be evidence of immorality?

Well as I mention in my previous post, you can easily find Biblical justifications for some rather horrendous acts, so at the very least the reverse isn't true - being a person on faith doesn't guarantee you have moral integrity.

tommy2bad · 08-07-2013 05:27PM

silentrust wrote: »

I
Massive snip

My reasons for not being a Christian don't have much to do with the above in all honesty - I don't follow your faith as I believe it's not true but as Christians, this is something I do think you have to face up to as following your doctrine is by no means a template for living a moral life.

Again you insist on claiming that your interpretation of Christianity is the right one and people who don't subscribe to it are not real Christians.

Some strange mix of straw-man and no true Scotsman argument.

Love one another is not a template for living a moral life? Well we are all screwed them!

tommy2bad · 08-07-2013 05:30PM

SoulandForm wrote: »

How do you know? Couldnt disbelief in God be evidence of immorality?

It could but then again it might not, theirs no evidence either way outside of Calvinism and the TULIP heresy.
Someone said the opposite of faith isn't doubt, it's certainty. More truth in that little phrase than many will admit.

desertcircus · 08-07-2013 05:31PM

martinedwards wrote: »

I LIKE the idea of a God who sets rules and expects people to follow them.

otherwise what's the point of worship at all?

maybe in the world of a big fluffy cuddly God, all the good children will get a hug from the giant bunny, but the God of Heaven says, if I don't know you, you'll be cast out.

even if you have lead what you consider a moral life.

Wait, you think a God who curses people for eternity for where they were born is genuinely more worthy of praise than one who rewards good deeds and fair conduct?

silentrust · 08-07-2013 05:45PM

tommy2bad wrote: »

Again you insist on claiming that your interpretation of Christianity is the right one and people who don't subscribe to it are not real Christians.

Some strange mix of straw-man and no true Scotsman argument.

Love one another is not a template for living a moral life? Well we are all screwed them!

I think the straw man argument would be if I attempted to represent Christianity as something it wasn't - is it unfair to judge Christians by their actions, their holy texts and proclamations by senior religious figures?

How would you prefer to be defined? In a hip, nice way which ignores all the Old Testament commandments to murder people of other faiths? Well good on you but let's not try and pretend that isn't part of Christianity, let's not pretend that you have to ignore that in order to act in a moral way - I am not making this up, for instance:

"If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." (Leviticus 20:13 NAB)

You cannot deny it's entirely consistent to be a Christian and believe the above. This isn't some convenient workaround I've invented, this is actually what it says - so what do you do when your own religious text tells you to act in what we both know to be an immoral way?

As I said, for a person of faith, this isn't an issue as I know the book of Leviticus was written by frightened desert dwellers who wouldn't know civilised society as we know it if it came and hit them on the backside but for Christians this is hugely important - how do you reconcile a God who seems to want you to hate homosexuals with a loving one who will show you how to live a life of moral integrity?

tommy2bad · 08-07-2013 06:00PM

silentrust wrote: »

How would you prefer to be defined? In a hip, nice way which ignores all the Old Testament commandments to murder people of other faiths? Well good on you but let's not try and pretend that isn't part of Christianity, let's not pretend that you have to ignore that in order to act in a moral way - I am not making this up, for instance:

"If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." (Leviticus 20:13 NAB)

You cannot deny it's entirely consistent to be a Christian and believe the above. This isn't some convenient workaround I've invented, this is actually what it says - so what do you do when your own religious text tells you to act in what we both know to be an immoral way?

As I said, for a person of faith, this isn't an issue as I know the book of Leviticus was written by frightened desert dwellers who wouldn't know civilised society as we know it if it came and hit them on the backside but for Christians this is hugely important - how do you reconcile a God who seems to want you to hate homosexuals with a loving one who will show you how to live a life of moral integrity?

I can deny it's entirely consistent to be a Christian and believe the above. In fact I'll go further and say it inconsistent with Christianity to adhere to any of Leviticus. Leviticus belongs to the law and a christian believes that that time has passed and dose not apply to us.
Now that's out of the way, I see what you mean and tbh I agree, their is a lot of stuff in the OT that is problematic for Christians. I don't subscribe to the 'that's OT and doesn't apply to us get out of jail card' I just used but had to say it for clarity at least.

Benny_Cake · 08-07-2013 06:12PM

Mod note: I've merged the "why do non-Christians.." thread with this one as they are both covering the same ground.

Zombrex · 08-07-2013 07:56PM

tommy2bad wrote: »

Now that's out of the way, I see what you mean and tbh I agree, their is a lot of stuff in the OT that is problematic for Christians.

That is the point though, isn't it. It is not problematic for Christians, Christians just ignore all of this by saying hey everyone lets focus on the positive. Which is a bit like saying Mussolini got the trains running on time. For all the lip service that these passages are a "challenge" for Christians, it is shockingly not in so many cases.

tommy2bad · 08-07-2013 08:35PM

Zombrex wrote: »

That is the point though, isn't it. It is not problematic for Christians, Christians just ignore all of this by saying hey everyone lets focus on the positive. Which is a bit like saying Mussolini got the trains running on time. For all the lip service that these passages are a "challenge" for Christians, it is shockingly not in so many cases.

Never mind the 'look theirs an elephant' responses, their are actually some defenders of this stuff, remember the rape in the bible argument from a while back?

Zombrex · 08-07-2013 09:39PM

tommy2bad wrote: »

Never mind the 'look theirs an elephant' responses, their are actually some defenders of this stuff, remember the rape in the bible argument from a while back?

Again this is the point. If you cannot defend this stuff, how can you continue to be a Christian. And if you can defend this stuff how can you consider yourself moral (when is it ever moral to stone your wife to death because she isn't a virgin on your wedding night)

This stuff should be so difficult for Christians to reconcile that there should be a lot less Christians. But instead of genuinely being troubled by this stuff, most of you simply ignore it, push it to the side.

tommy2bad · 09-07-2013 08:00AM

Zombrex wrote: »

Again this is the point. If you cannot defend this stuff, how can you continue to be a Christian. And if you can defend this stuff how can you consider yourself moral (when is it ever moral to stone your wife to death because she isn't a virgin on your wedding night)

This stuff should be so difficult for Christians to reconcile that there should be a lot less Christians. But instead of genuinely being troubled by this stuff, most of you simply ignore it, push it to the side.

The thing is being a christian isn't based on being good, so we don't get to toss people out who are sinners so we can have a good peoples club.
Nither do we claim to be perfect ourselves. When the bible says 'God said go and do some repulsive stuff' we don't get to claim that that stuff has become a good thing because God said to do it.
It's a hard one to resolve without abandoning the idea that the bible is the actual word of God and embracing the possibility that it's only one side of the story.
I don't have a problem with doing that, and I don't see it as reducing the claim that the bible is the revealed word of God.

Zombrex · 09-07-2013 08:27AM

tommy2bad wrote: »

The thing is being a christian isn't based on being good, so we don't get to toss people out who are sinners so we can have a good peoples club.

That isn't the point. The point is that Christianity declares what was commanded by God in the Old Testament as automatically a good thing because it was ordered by God and God can only be good and holy, and a lot more Christians should find that deeply deeply troubling to the point where there are a lot less Christians. You should find it very difficult to believe either that such a god exists or that such claims about what he ordered are true, both of which should cause you to seriously doubt the validity of Christianity.

As an atheist is it rather concerning that this doesn't seem to be an issue for billions of people around the world.

Am I going to hell?

Comments