Atheists go to hell even if they are good!?

[Skavau]

http://www.christianforums.com/reputation.php?p=57477114

I do understand about using external software, and it is one small part of why I (usually) don't go into great length in a single post. Anymore You can still use the quote function here that provides the little blue arrow that takes us right to context; just hit quote and then copy the text. Voila!

Yes I know.

I don't recall the exact specifics of what you did nor is that my main concern, but in general if you can find justification for a certain point you're making, you should know that what I'm objecting to must be something else. Isn't that reasonable? And also to look for that, to see what it might be in your initial response? In this case it was something like twisting my straightforward comparison btw evil here and hereafter, into something I never said. That comparison I actually did make, for a specific purpose, so obviously I couldn't have objected to that that. Right?

I didn't twist your comparison in the slightest. You're going to have to explain how I did.

I furnished you with Scripture on this point long ago:

"I will search Jerusalem with candles, and punish the men that are settled on their lees: that say in their heart, The LORD will not do good, neither will he do evil." (Zephaniah 1:12)

Last time, you butchered the clear intent of this horribly, so I really don't take it personally when you also do that to my words. Do you not see my point?

You admitted that God deliberately puts evil in the world. I have nothing to add to that.

So what you have is a scenario where G-d absolutely WILL do evil, (why I furnished this Scripture both times) and you shake your fist at Him for it. Just like Revelation Prophesies.

Would you have me worship a God that would cause evil?

The purpose of the grieving process, (and there is real grief involved here) is ACCEPTANCE. That is the last step of the process, and you are young. So how long do you think is reasonable before you stop shaking your fist, accept this Truth, and take the next step? And do you think reconciliation is a logical next step, assuming it is still offered at that time? I ask because there are at least a couple unbelievers who maintain it is morally superior to side with satan, even knowing it means certain defeat, and potential eternal torture.

What?

Do you think I am on the verge of conversion, or something?

And by the way, if it was true that God imposed eternal torture on all those who were not of his own - you're absolutely right that I would side with Satan and take the punishment. I would rather that than be in the company of the deity that organised the system itself.

 

[razeontherock]

So we receive a reprieve so long as we do absolutely nothing, ever. How loving of God.

Yeah, all of my pet peeves have just 'evaporated'.

I do understand your concern! That sin stuff is a real bee-yatch. That's the point of the first story in the Bible - don't you agree?

 

[razeontherock]

vicarious redemption

You're still using that term, which still tells me you don't understand Christianity to be able to reject it. I do think it's a good thing you haven't been presented with it yet, vis:

It is difficult to constrain one's own anger when confronted with such unashamed amorality. By insisting that anything is moral on the basis of God's word then you necessarily reduce to nothing more than obedience.
You can only derive your behavioural constraints by the declaration of might. Humanity can mean nothing but tools to an end of God's grand scheme.
You claim that so long as God decrees X then it is right. The self-destructive consequences of this mentality can be seen immediately.
you could have no objection to anything God could ever say.
The terms 'justice' and 'compassion', just like morality can have no meaning

There is some truth mixed in here that you object to because of grossly misrepresenting G-d's Nature. Or maybe to say misunderstanding His Nature would be better? There is also massive untruth in there, such as false conclusions you draw about others, and based on thinking you can make decisions for them about how they think, rather than listening to what they say.

You need to sort out those extremes before you could ever hear the Gospel.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Yes I know, but what makes it absurd is you both ascribe to it and ask your opening question here. Gravity = we can't readily do anything we wish, and our need to breathe is also a constraint in many instances. Both are "Divinely imposed limitations," which is where you entered the conversation. Yet our species manages to defy gravity, and breathe in situations where unassisted, we could not.

So your definition of free will is foolish fantasy, utterly detached from reality; critical thinking does not arrive at such conclusions.

I could try and explain the meaning of free will once again, since you're still not getting it, but I honestly don't have the time. I could provide a list of basic philosophy and critical thinking books that could really further your education if you'd like. It may help with any miscommunication you have on these forums, and knowing a little bit about critical thinking really is a boon in everyday life. I wish critical thinking classes were mandatory in schools. I think we'd produce fewer people who believe odd things.

 

[Skavau]

You're still using that term, which still tells me you don't understand Christianity to be able to reject it. I do think it's a good thing you haven't been presented with it yet, vis:

There is some truth mixed in here that you object to because of grossly misrepresenting G-d's Nature. Or maybe to say misunderstanding His Nature would be better? There is also massive untruth in there, such as false conclusions you draw about others, and based on thinking you can make decisions for them about how they think, rather than listening to what they say.

You need to sort out those extremes before you could ever hear the Gospel.

I wasn't talking to you. I was talking to Zaac.

What I said was entirely consistent in a response to Zaac. I wish you would stop responding to posts I make to other people and attribute them as if they are supposed to be a conventional criticism of mainstream Christianity or an observation on you. They are neither. It was a response to Zaac's unyielding fanaticism.

 

[razeontherock]

I didn't twist your comparison in the slightest. You're going to have to explain how I did.

It was not my comparison that you twisted, but something else.

Would you have me worship a God that would cause evil?

He alone is worthy.

I would side with Satan and take the punishment. I would rather that than be in the company of the deity that organised the system itself.

And as long as you insist upon it, you will never know Him in any other way. These are dire words you just uttered, and they will really come back to haunt you unless you find a way to repent.

 

[razeontherock]

I could try and explain the meaning of free will once again

No, you've provided more than enough foolishness already. You simply fail to apply critical thought to consider the ramifications of what you espouse.

 

[Skavau]

http://www.christianforums.com/users/263091/

It was not my comparison that you twisted, but something else.

Wat

He alone is worthy.

How masochistic of you.

And as long as you insist upon it, you will never know Him in any other way. These are dire words you just uttered, and they will really come back to haunt you unless you find a way to repent.

I'll utter them again to anyone who tells me that I must show nothing but adulation to a God that would otherwise order my eternal torture. I would say it to anyone in a humanistic context who told me to bow down to an authoritarian political regime. I'll say it to all forms of totalitarianism, fascism and tyranny.

I won't whitewash and forget what you think he orders just for reasons of self-interest.

 

[Zaac]

Glad to see just how open you are about it at last.

What do you mean at last? Was the question asked before and I failed to answer it?

In any case, I will always respond against such vitriol by re-asserting the reality: I am not a liar. I sincerely do not believe in God. I sincerely do not believe in Christianity. I am not 'rejecting' Christianity or vicarious redemption anymore than I am 'rejecting' that Muhammad is the messenger of Allah.

Your avatar says that you are a humanist, not an atheist. And I said in accordance with God's word, all atheists are liars. I hope that clears it up for you.

If you as a humanist reject Jesus Christ, then like the atheist, you will spend eternity in the lake of fire. And if that comes across as vitriolic to you, I can't help that you feel that way about the truth.

I will re-assert the reality: I do not 'willfully' reject what God says. I don't believe that 'God' has ever said anything. I am an atheist. I don't believe in God.

And I will reassert the TRUTH. You have been given God's truth. You CHOOSE to reject It as the truth. You will, as of your current rejection, spend an eternity in the Lake of Fire because of YOU CHOOSING to do so.

I will also remind you that my question is not in this case, a hypothetical. It is asking you what you think of Muslims. More specifically: Do you think that Muslims are rejecting heaven in favour of hell? You are keen enough to say it of atheists. Do you also say it of Muslims?

They reject Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior so why would you think the response is going to differ?

So you say. I have been given and been told what you believe. What you believe happens to be incompatible with morality and reality and so I cannot literally consider it to be true.

And we can go back and forth with what you believe based upon your "reality". The Creator of your reality has given the truth and if a person rejects Him in lieu of his reality, that person is still CHOOSING to spend an eternity in the Lake of Fire.

Incorrect. Because of my indignation concerning the notion of a 'lake of fire' for all non-conformists I cannot be told that this said 'truth' is worthy of following and the orator behind it worthy of worship. I would hold to this regardless of whether I actually believed it to be true or not. That is to say, at the risk of prompting Godwin's Law that Hitler was a bad man whether or not he existed in reality or fiction.

Yes because of your indignation of accepting the truth you CHOOSE to spend an eternity in the Lake of Fire where your indignation ain't gonna mean any more in the face of God's truth than it currently does.

I have been told by you where you think that God says I will go. I find the viewpoint contemptible and morally unjustifiable.

YOU ain't God so what you find contemptible and morally unjust doesn't mean anything when dealing with the One Who created you and gave you the ability to think. Your feelings don't supersede what God says.

I don't believe that a 'lake of fire' exists. I am no more 'choosing' to go to the lake of fire as understood in Christianity than I am choosing to enter hellfire as decreed under Islam.

You don't have to. Muslims don't believe that Jesus is God. By rejecting His truth, you're both in the same boat CHOOSING to row right into the Lake of Fire. It doesn't go away just because you don't believe it exists.

You also misrepresent the very nature of belief by insinuating that conviction can be chosen.

Again, I don't insinuate, imply or contend things that I can say.

My point was that I have no reason to believe Christianity over Islam. I have no reason to accept Christianity over Sikhism. I have no reason to think Christianity true over Hinduism. If you can't provide me with any positive reasons to isolate Christianity as true over all the other possibilities then not only does the wager fail, then I have no reason to accept vicarious redemption.

Then you haven't sought the truth. Because those seeking the truth will find it.

This is again another smear. Another attack on my character by insisting that my sincerity is a front. I repeat again that I don't believe that God's word is true. I do not believe that there is even such a thing as 'God's word'.

Then again, you are CHOOSING to spend an eternity in the Lake of Fire.

It is difficult to constrain one's own anger when confronted with such unashamed amorality. By insisting that anything is moral on the basis of God's word then you necessarily reduce to nothing more than obedience.

YEP.

It is indicative of some of the most profound justification for evil that can or has ever existed in this planet. You necessarily, by your explanation can only derive morality from authority. You can only derive your behavioural constraints by the declaration of might. Humanity can mean nothing but tools to an end of God's grand scheme.

Nice worldview. My Biblical worldview holds that we are here to serve God and others. GOD is paramount, not man. So all of your humanism is wasted on the ones who follow Christ .

There is a deeper problem to your explanation, and it confirms exactly what I suspected. You propose a morality of systematic obedience and capitulation to authority in the face of demands. Your morality is nothing more than this. You claim that so long as God decrees X then it is right. The self-destructive consequences of this mentality can be seen immediately. You do not say that things such as murder, theft, rape, slavery, torture etc are wrong because of their impact on the lives of other people. You say that these things are wrong just because God says so. You distort the term 'moral' to mean 'obedience' and the term 'immoral' to mean 'disobedience'.

No problems here. If it is against God, it is immoral from a Biblical perspective. For the ones who follow Christ, He is the center around which everything revolves.

If you really, truly believe that this is true then you could have no objection to anything God could ever say.

i may not understand it all, but there are certainly no objections.

If hypothetically, God was to decree murder as valid - you could have no mechanism to disapprove.

I don't deal in hypotheticals. God says what He says about murder.

If God was to state that rape was wholly acceptable - you would have no reasoning in your library to dispute that. The terms 'justice' and 'compassion', just like morality can have no meaning in your dichtonomy.

Same response as above.

And this is objective?

You're looking for human logic because you think humanity is the basis of everything as do most humanists.

I deal in God's truth.

This is a morality of understanding, of objective parameters? It creates an applicable converse to the opposite of Dostoevsky's famous quote in the Brother's Karamazov. I'll say: with God, all things are possible.

No response for this type stuff. It's irrelevant to a discussion on God. Get deep with someone else. I deal with the simple stuff of salvation. You either accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior or you're going to spend eternity in the Lake of Fire.

A man chooses, a slave obeys. Thank you for reminding me of the importance of that.

And this clearly displays the difference between a humanistic worldview and God's view.

I did, and you answered only belatedly.

Sure.

But I don't believe in God - and therefore the claim that eternal torture and thought-crime are mandated by God are completely meaningless to me.

Then you will spend eternity in the Lake of Fire.

Concerning what you derive your morality from, I suppose that motivation means precious little to you. Just how 'justice' and 'compassion' mean absolutely nothing to you.

They mean what God says they mean. And what God says they mean and what you say they mean aren't aligned.

 

[razeontherock]

I wasn't talking to you. I was talking to Zaac.

What I said was entirely consistent in a response to Zaac. I wish you would stop responding to posts I make to other people and attribute them as if they are supposed to be a conventional criticism of mainstream Christianity or an observation on you. They are neither. It was a response to Zaac's unyielding fanaticism.

You are still referring to "vicarious redemption," as though it were a C term which it is not. This really does show a misunderstanding on your part somewhere, such that the comparison you're making btw religions cannot be valid. Where that misunderstanding might be i cannot pinpoint, yet. We sure have uncovered quite a few so far though! Like the concept that a world full of danger said to be created by G-d -- that same G-d would do evil. This should be self evident, but it struck you as news.

 

[razeontherock]

I'll utter them again to anyone who tells me that I must show nothing but adulation to a God that would otherwise order my eternal torture. I would say it to anyone in a humanistic context who told me to bow down to an authoritarian political regime. I'll say it to all forms of totalitarianism, fascism and tyranny.

I won't whitewash and forget what you think he orders just for reasons of self-interest.

Except Christianity espouses none of that. (Yes, I do know the corrupt RC did advance self-interest, proclaiming it as godly. No doubt about that, but they weren't even remotely Christian in doing so. It was nothing more than a war machine, most assuredly referred to as the harlot of Babylon in Revelation)

 

[Tergle]

I wasn't talking to you. I was talking to Zaac.

What I said was entirely consistent in a response to Zaac. I wish you would stop responding to posts I make to other people and attribute them as if they are supposed to be a conventional criticism of mainstream Christianity or an observation on you. They are neither. It was a response to Zaac's unyielding fanaticism.

The following may be an example of unyielding fanaticism from the other side:

And by the way, if it was true that God imposed eternal torture on all those who were not of his own - you're absolutely right that I would side with Satan and take the punishment. I would rather that than be in the company of the deity that organised the system itself.

- Skavau

 

[razeontherock]

"I would rather that than be in the company of the deity that organised the system itself."

In Skavau's defense, I submit he does not realize what he just said there, knowing nothing about who's company he just signed up for. THAT is the worst part of hell, that satan is confined there, with his minions. (With no rescue in sight being a given, of course) People truly were not designed to endure that.

 

[Zaac]

So you keep saying. Your repetition of this 'fact' does not make it any less of an immoral thing to say.

You don't get to decide what is moral and immoral. God alone gets to set that bar and in accordance with His bar, you reject Him, you will spend eternity in the Lake of Fire.

This does not make any sense. If someone makes an unreasonable demand or imposes a disproportionate punishment then they are not right to do it.

You're not God. And I thus give you the words of God:

2 “Who is this that questions my wisdom
with such ignorant words?
3 Brace yourself like a man,
because I have some questions for you,
and you must answer them.

4 “Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth?
Tell me, if you know so much.
5 Who determined its dimensions
and stretched out the surveying line?
6 What supports its foundations,
and who laid its cornerstone
7 as the morning stars sang together
and all the angels[a] shouted for joy?

8 “Who kept the sea inside its boundaries
as it burst from the womb,
9 and as I clothed it with clouds
and wrapped it in thick darkness?
10 For I locked it behind barred gates,
limiting its shores.
11 I said, ‘This far and no farther will you come.
Here your proud waves must stop!’

12 “Have you ever commanded the morning to appear
and caused the dawn to rise in the east?
13 Have you made daylight spread to the ends of the earth,
to bring an end to the night’s wickedness?
14 As the light approaches,
the earth takes shape like clay pressed beneath a seal;
it is robed in brilliant colors.
15 The light disturbs the wicked
and stops the arm that is raised in violence.

16 “Have you explored the springs from which the seas come?
Have you explored their depths?
17 Do you know where the gates of death are located?
Have you seen the gates of utter gloom?
18 Do you realize the extent of the earth?
Tell me about it if you know!


Job 38:2-18

Now when you can ascend to His throne and create all things, you come back and let me know and then I might listen to your measure of what is moral or immoral.

 

[Skavau]

What do you mean at last? Was the question asked before and I failed to answer it?

No, but you were seemingly reluctantly to come out and openly say what you thought.

Your avatar says that you are a humanist, not an atheist. And I said in accordance with God's word, all atheists are liars. I hope that clears it up for you.

Zaac, this is really simple stuff. I am both a humanist and and an atheist and therefore not lying.

If you as a humanist reject Jesus Christ, then like the atheist, you will spend eternity in the lake of fire. And if that comes across as vitriolic to you, I can't help that you feel that way about the truth.

It doesn't come across as vitriolic. It comes across as nightmarish.

And I will reassert the TRUTH. You have been given God's truth. You CHOOSE to reject It as the truth. You will, as of your current rejection, spend an eternity in the Lake of Fire because of YOU CHOOSING to do so.

I will again re-assert reality: I have been given only literature and claims based on that literature. I don't believe that said literature is actually 'God's truth' and my rejection is based on my understanding which is necessarily not motivated by choice.

They reject Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior so why would you think the response is going to differ?

But they do worship what they view to be the current understanding of God. They do believe that they are going to heaven. How can you peddle the utterly ridiculous claim that they are choosing hell when their entire belief system is there so they can enter heaven?

And we can go back and forth with what you believe based upon your "reality". The Creator of your reality has given the truth and if a person rejects Him in lieu of his reality, that person is still CHOOSING to spend an eternity in the Lake of Fire.

I will again re-iterate what is actually true: I don't believe that a 'creator' exists and I don't believe that there is a 'lake of fire'.

Yes because of your indignation of accepting the truth you CHOOSE to spend an eternity in the Lake of Fire where your indignation ain't gonna mean any more in the face of God's truth than it currently does.

First of all, whether or not my opposition to atrocity has any real world implications does nothing to dampen the validity behind it in the slightest. Secondly, I repeat again: I do not believe that the 'lake of fire' actually exists and thus cannot be choosing to go to it.

YOU ain't God so what you find contemptible and morally unjust doesn't mean anything when dealing with the One Who created you and gave you the ability to think. Your feelings don't supersede what God says.

I know this is what you believe. I know that your morality is merely a front for your unquestioning perpetual obedience.

You don't have to. Muslims don't believe that Jesus is God. By rejecting His truth, you're both in the same boat CHOOSING to row right into the Lake of Fire. It doesn't go away just because you don't believe it exists.

Do you know anything about Islam at all? Muslims believe that the reward for their devotion is Jannah. It is the height of ignorance to believe that they are choosing to go to hell.

Again, I don't insinuate, imply or contend things that I can say.

You haven't said that belief is choice, but you necessarily have implied it and you are wrong when you do so.

Then you haven't sought the truth. Because those seeking the truth will find it.

Except the demographics have never ever suggested this at all.

Then again, you are CHOOSING to spend an eternity in the Lake of Fire.

Except that is logically impossible. I can't choose to go somewhere that I don't believe exists. Do you know anything about logic whatsoever?

Nice worldview. My Biblical worldview holds that we are here to serve God and others. GOD is paramount, not man. So all of your humanism is wasted on the ones who follow Christ .

No, you will find that it is your worldview. Your worldview makes excuses and apologies for evil done to man at all times so long as it has God's brand.

No problems here. If it is against God, it is immoral from a Biblical perspective. For the ones who follow Christ, He is the center around which everything revolves.

There are then. You've just conceded it. You are the epitomy of evil.

I don't deal in hypotheticals. God says what He says about murder.

Whether or not you deal with them or not is not the point. If God was to decree that murder was right, you would have to accept it, and you have to accept it with glee and righteousness.

You're looking for human logic because you think humanity is the basis of everything as do most humanists.

I think humanity is the basis of civilization. Humanism is an ethical ideology, not a worldview on reality.

No response for this type stuff. It's irrelevant to a discussion on God. Get deep with someone else. I deal with the simple stuff of salvation. You either accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior or you're going to spend eternity in the Lake of Fire.

I suppose I was mistaken to believe that you could even hold an elementary understanding of the absolute evil that your world-view proposes. You would kill your own parents and your own kids if you felt that God told you to. They would literally mean nothing to you if God told you they didn't. This is true regardless of hypothetical examples or not.

And this clearly displays the difference between a humanistic worldview and God's view.

Proud of your shackles, I see.

 

[Skavau]

"I would rather that than be in the company of the deity that organised the system itself."

In Skavau's defense, I submit he does not realize what he just said there, knowing nothing about who's company he just signed up for. THAT is the worst part of hell, that satan is confined there, with his minions. (With no rescue in sight being a given, of course) People truly were not designed to endure that.

My opposition is symbolic, you know. It is a truly good thing that there's no reason whatsoever to think that any of this stuff is actually true.

 

[Skavau]

You are still referring to "vicarious redemption," as though it were a C term which it is not. This really does show a misunderstanding on your part somewhere, such that the comparison you're making btw religions cannot be valid. Where that misunderstanding might be i cannot pinpoint, yet. We sure have uncovered quite a few so far though! Like the concept that a world full of danger said to be created by G-d -- that same G-d would do evil. This should be self evident, but it struck you as news.

I'm completely familiar with the traditional arguments against a benevolent God concerning natural evil. If you believe that God is willing to do evil (as you do) then I have no quarrel with you. You concede the point.

 

[razeontherock]

You don't get to decide what is moral and immoral. God alone gets to set that bar

Query: does Scripture ever speak of morality? Or does He speak of His righteousness, and contrast that with our own?

 

[razeontherock]

My opposition is symbolic, you know. It is a truly good thing that there's no reason whatsoever to think that any of this stuff is actually true.

I do realize it is merely symbolic to you. And I don't pretend to know how G-d may view that. Consistent with what I said before about (the non-existent) someone who's only sin was thought, if you actually take no action based on this train of thought, it might prove to be just an important stage of growth. I do urge you to outgrow this stage though! There are at least some points in your logic that are not sound. Even if I can't furnish you with a superior replacement for your flaws, please do examine the weaknesses I pinpoint. I realize it is an uncomfortable position; for me, too.

 

[Tergle]

"They are led astray alright. And they know it. Otherwise they wouldn't be here. I don't join atheist sites in hopes to be saved in Darwin. And why wate time asking questions of the closed minded. Or, rather, those that have mad a choice to hate Christians and Christianity. And there is no doubt about it being hate. Think about it, hundreds of millions of Christians go into and out of Churches all over the worlf and come out to engage the world in normality. Nothing more than that. Yet, you'ld think we come out with swords and mob rule. Interesting how that utterly fits the secularists though.'
--Tergle

1. Yet another fallacy by theists: the one where they pretend to know what the atheist is really, REALLY thinking! I come here to argue. Theists may hate me for it, but I love doing it.

We know you love arguing with us. BTW I don't hate being right. You guys validate that all the time.

2. Tergle you don't join atheist sites because you'd be torn apart, especially when one considers the fact that all you do is accuse atheists of things they don't do.

Like live to argue with Christians (theists)?

3. Atheists don't think you can be "saved" by Darwin.

Their arguments are immersed in evolutionary support. There's even Darwin celebration days now.

4. The atheists on those forums don't hate Christians or Christianity.

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck . . .

They just don't believe that Christianity is true. You tell them that Christianity is real, they'll say "prove it". Prove it means using scientific evidence.

Prove scientifically how life stays in a corporeal body? How a memory stays in living organ matter. Why anyone cares about a stranger in far off lands?

But hey, you've never been on the atheist forums, so you of course you wouldn't know that.

There's enough experience in the college milieu for enough canned reponse to know them thoroughly. And again, you guys here are as typical as it gets. Plus the books they write are regurgited comebacks again and again.

I wish you'd go there, and just ask them about their viewpoints so you could educate yourself.

Egotists are rarely fascinating for more than a moment. And even more rare as entertainment or enlightenment.