Atheists go to hell even if they are good!?

[Doveaman]

I'm sure there will be people in heaven who have never met or heard of Jesus.

Why are you so sure?

 

[Rajni]

Why are you so sure?

I could be wrong, but perhaps because he has enough faith that God is truly that efficient as Head of the Department of Creation Management.

 

[Doveaman]

I could be wrong, but perhaps because he has enough faith that God is truly that efficient as Head of the Department of Creation Management.

What about my faith that God is not that efficient? Doesn't my faith count for anything?

 

[Doveaman]

Even without the carrot of heaven dangling in front of us, it doesn't take much to realize that immoral/unethical behavior comes with it's own consequences.

Sometimes.

There were many immoral/unethical people who lived long, healthy, happy, successful lives. And many still do.

If we are all going to be in heaven in end no matter what, why should I live any different from them.

I can think of quite a few ways to make my life much more pleasurable by being immoral/unethical.

Why should I deny myself such pleasures if God saves us all in the end no matter what? I don't see the point. Do you?

 

[Freodin]

Sometimes.

There were many immoral/unethical people who lived long, healthy, happy, successful lives. And many still do.

If we are all going to be in heaven in end no matter what, why should I live any different from them.

I can think of quite a few ways to make my life much more pleasurable by being immoral/unethical.

Why should I deny myself such pleasures if God saves us all in the end no matter what? I don't see the point. Do you?

I would say that this position is unethical in itself. So why should God save you at all?

 

[Skavau]

Sometimes.

There were many immoral/unethical people who lived long, healthy, happy, successful lives. And many still do.

If we are all going to be in heaven in end no matter what, why should I live any different from them.

I can think of quite a few ways to make my life much more pleasurable by being immoral/unethical.

Why should I deny myself such pleasures if God saves us all in the end no matter what? I don't see the point. Do you?

A double-edged sword. You are right in pointing out the inevitable (pleasant, though it is) nihilism that could originate from a theological universalism that redeems everyone.

However, you implicate yourself slightly in why you are moral. Do you seriously only refrain from immorality and hedonism purely because of a fear of retribution?

 

[Rajni]

What about my faith that God is not that efficient? Doesn't my faith count for anything?

There were many immoral/unethical people who lived long, healthy, happy, successful lives. And many still do.

Perhaps, although appearances can be deceiving.

Also, it appears that when Christians want to win folks over to Christianity, one approach is to provide testimonies of how miserable their (usually hedonistic) lives were before they met Jesus. I don't know why that would change simply because everyone's final destination is heaven; it seems there's more to it than that.

If we are all going to be in heaven in end no matter what, why should I live any different from them.

Maybe for that very reason, because we're all going to be in heaven in the end?
Is heaven-in-the-end the only tangible difference between having a relationship with God and not having a relationship with God?

I can think of quite a few ways to make my life much more pleasurable by being immoral/unethical.

I think that in time you would find that it backfired on you. Heaven-some-day doesn't mean the Spirit isn't going to be weighing down on your conscience in the meantime. Besides, we'll mess up enough anyway without having to go out of our way to do so, being imperfect like we are.

Why should I deny myself such pleasures if God saves us all in the end no matter what? I don't see the point. Do you?

This question assumes that the fear of hell really works across the board as a behavior modifier. Scripture suggests that the primary reason for living it up isn't a future hope in heaven, but the lack thereof. "Eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die".

Just going by my own experience, once heaven-one-day became solidly established in my worldview, my behavior actually seemed to improve. This is likely due to the fact that I no longer felt that this world is my only chance to be happy. I literally have all eternity for that. Those who aren't so sure they've got anything to look forward to beyond the grave may feel more pressure to grab all the gusto they can now, because after death it's annihilation or endless misery (hence the eat-drink-be-merry-while-you-can approach).

It can work both ways, I suppose, depending on the individual.

 

[Freodin]

Perhaps, although appearances can be deceiving.

Also, it appears that when Christians want to win folks over to Christianity, one approach is to provide testimonies of how miserable their (usually hedonistic) lives were before they met Jesus. I don't know why that would change simply because everyone's final destination is heaven; it seems there's more to it than that.



Maybe for that very reason, because we're all going to be in heaven in the end?
Is heaven-in-the-end the only tangible difference between having a relationship with God and not having a relationship with God?



I think that in time you would find that it backfired on you. Heaven-some-day doesn't mean the Spirit isn't going to be weighing down on your conscience in the meantime. Besides, we'll mess up enough anyway without having to go out of our way to do so, being imperfect like we are.



This question assumes that the fear of hell really works across the board as a behavior modifier. Scripture suggests that the primary reason for living it up isn't a future hope in heaven, but the lack thereof. "Eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die".

Just going by my own experience, once heaven-one-day became solidly established in my worldview, my behavior actually seemed to improve. This is likely due to the fact that I no longer felt that this world is my only chance to be happy. I literally have all eternity for that. Those who aren't so sure they've got anything to look forward to beyond the grave may feel more pressure to grab all the gusto they can now, because after death it's annihilation or endless misery (hence the eat-drink-be-merry-while-you-can approach).

It can work both ways, I suppose, depending on the individual.

I guess this is a problem of this Nihilism / Theological Salvation dichotomy. If you have to pursue happiness, you will of course feel that you might be missing something.

I prefer a third option, that mostly gets ignored by those who are trying to "save" me: I don't try to be happy.... I am happy.

 

[Doveaman]

I would say that this position is unethical in itself.

What position is that?

All I am doing is imagining the way I might think if I was a universalist.

Living a moral/ethical life doesn't get anyone into heaven anyway, nor does it save us from hell. That's my position.

 

[Doveaman]

A double-edged sword.

Ya think?

You are right in pointing out the inevitable (pleasant, though it is) nihilism that could originate from a theological universalism that redeems everyone.

I'm sure universalists have a good reason for living decent lives. But if I was a universalist I don't see the point in always striving to be decent if it prevents me from achieving material success, especially when I know it wouldn't matter in the end as far as my salvation is concerned

However, you implicate yourself slightly in why you are moral. Do you seriously only refrain from immorality and hedonism purely because of a fear of retribution?

Nope. See my previous post.

 

[Freodin]

What position is that?

All I am doing is imagining the way I might think if I was a universalist.

Living a moral/ethical life doesn't get anyone into heaven anyway, nor does it save us from hell. That's my position.

I'm just imagining the way I might think if I was... you.

So, there are people who were immoral, and who lived long and happy. You want this happiness, but don't persue it, because.... yes, because of what? Fear of punishment? That means you aren't moral... you are just a coward.

And then there are people who were moral /ethical and who also lived a long and happy life. You don't try to persue their version of happiness, because you think that the immoral/unethical version gives you more happiness. Again, you are not moral. You long for immorality, even if you don't need to.

And then there are people who were immoral / unethical and who, after a long life of happiness came to repent... and hoppla! They are saved! There wasn't any need to be ethical... you just have to repent! Be a jerk and gain your salvation later!

And lastly there are the people who were moral and ethical and happy... and are damned to eternal hellfire because they didn't adhere to a particular , quite unreasonable belief.


I don't think that this worldview is either an example of justice nor of morals.

 

[Skavau]

Nope. See my previous post.

Then you concede that your inquiry as to why Universalists care about morality is moot. At least concerning you.

 

[Skavau]

Living a moral/ethical life doesn't get anyone into heaven anyway, nor does it save us from hell. That's my position.

Then the criteria for entrance to heaven or rejection to hell is incoherent at best and malicious at worst.

 

[Hakan101]

And then there are people who were immoral / unethical and who, after a long life of happiness came to repent... and hoppla! They are saved! There wasn't any need to be ethical... you just have to repent! Be a jerk and gain your salvation later!

And lastly there are the people who were moral and ethical and happy... and are damned to eternal hellfire because they didn't adhere to a particular , quite unreasonable belief.

I don't think that this worldview is either an example of justice nor of morals.

Here's where you got it mixed up. Everyone is immoral, everyone is unethical. Even who you'd call "good guys" are not good compared to God. Hence everybody who will be saved are those who repented for their sins. There's a need for that, repentance. If you repent and change your ways, that means you choose not to live that life of sin anymore. You tell God you're going to live for him now.

Those who end up repenting very late in their lives miss out on everything God had to offer them in this life. They waste the time God has given them to live fruitful lives. God doesn't just want to give us salvation, he wants to both use us for his good will and to enrich our lives, but how can anyone do that when they waste almost all of their life in sin? I assume this is what Jesus speaks about when he says they will be saved like a man from a burning house. These people are rescued in the nick of time, but those who have been Christians all their life are more likely to be prepared.

So you speak incorrectly when you say moral and ethical people are wrongfully condemned, because compared to God, everyone would be rightfully condemned. The only way we aren't is because we repent and live our lives for God. Heaven is for forgiven people, not "good" people. The Bible itself says that God is the one who makes us righteous, not ourselves.

 

[Freodin]

Here's where you got it mixed up. Everyone is immoral, everyone is unethical. Even who you'd call "good guys" are not good compared to God. Hence everybody who will be saved are those who repented for their sins. There's a need for that, repentance. If you repent and change your ways, that means you choose not to live that life of sin anymore. You tell God you're going to live for him now.

Those who end up repenting very late in their lives miss out on everything God had to offer them in this life. They waste the time God has given them to live fruitful lives. God doesn't just want to give us salvation, he wants to both use us for his good will and to enrich our lives, but how can anyone do that when they waste almost all of their life in sin? I assume this is what Jesus speaks about when he says they will be saved like a man from a burning house. These people are rescued in the nick of time, but those who have been Christians all their life are more likely to be prepared.

So you speak incorrectly when you say moral and ethical people are wrongfully condemned, because compared to God, everyone would be rightfully condemned. The only way we aren't is because we repent and live our lives for God. Heaven is for forgiven people, not "good" people. The Bible itself says that God is the one who makes us righteous, not ourselves.

I know. That's why I called that a "quite unreasonable" belief.

Consider: at the moment we are not talking about the distinction between the saved and unsaved... we are talking about the difference between "everyone saved" vs. "salvation for some".

God makes us righteous. Ok, accepted. God forgives our sins. God saves us.
So it is up to God to decide who to save... even if it is everyone, the repentent and the unrepentent.

Now, if everyone is saved, the only existent difference is the here and now. And while God may be responsible for our eternal salvation, it is up to ourselves to "live for him now". If you want to do that, if you think that this is the better way to live, it is up to you.
It is up to you... even if it doesn't have any consequences for your salvation.

You have to live according to your conscience. You have to live in the way that you think is right.

But if you don't do that... if you go against your conscience, because you fear the consequences of doing that... how can that be a moral worldview?

And if you try to get others to go against their conscience, because of your own fears... how can that be moral?

So I'd say that the position "You must be punished, because I am not moral." is not a very just nor moral position.

 

[razeontherock]

Supposedly through Jesus Christ, not human vote. Is it actually a Tinker-Bell-esque scenario, where the power is only effective if you believe ... ?

Well I'm not sure any of us would do anything but frown at your term "tinkerbell-esque," but what you're referring to is expressed in the OT as a lace of blue. How hard is it to break a piece of lace?

In the meantime, of course it's going to be a case that one church's teaching is another church's false concept.

Nope, I can't let you slide with such a mindless cliche. The fact is it is a personal thing, language fails to express it, and ultimately it is not the Church (institution) that is responsible but the individual. You will find people that "get it" from all the various denominations. And possibly some outside of all that too. None of this points to what I see you demonstrate, which is to shrug and walk away from the Truth simply because everybody doesn't walk in lock-step.

 

[razeontherock]

I don't think that this worldview is either an example of justice nor of morals.

Well it's a good thing you didn't just present the Gospel then, isn't it?

ETA: wow the mess you made in post #235 is ... much, much worse. I agree that what you presented is quite an unreasonable belief! I wonder what you would think if you ever encountered the Gospel?

 

[razeontherock]

Then the criteria for entrance to heaven or rejection to hell is incoherent at best and malicious at worst.
[/SIZE]

No, it's simply something you do not understand.

 

[Freodin]

Well it's a good thing you didn't just present the Gospel then, isn't it?

ETA: wow the mess you made in post #235 is ... much, much worse. I agree that what you presented is quite an unreasonable belief! I wonder what you would think if you ever encountered the Gospel?

Well, thank you for such a precise and to-the-point criticism of my post.

So what is the Gospel... according to razeontherock?

 

[Skavau]

No, it's simply something you do not understand.

Raze, you appear to have forgotten that people on this thread have proposed several different criterias for entrance for those who end up in heaven and hell. They are not all so obtuse as you as to answer in vague non-answers that complain that no-one understands you.

The particular person I responded to there was Doveaman who admitted that heaven and hell had absolutely nothing to do with any specific behavioural constraints. If so, my point remains there.