Atheists go to hell even if they are good!?

[Zipi]

Goading? I am a Christian. Not stupid, and obviosuly anti atheism. "I" am not sending anyone to hell. They buy their own ticket. Where on earth would you get the idea that the Gospel is in any way not anti-atheist? My choice of Christ makes being an anti-atheist a certainty. Is that somehow news to anyone of the "freethinkers" here?

Like the humanist manifesto (s), the Gospel makes a stand against other belief systems. And without a doubt, atheism is one of them.

Being a christain does not make you an anti-atheist...

 

[citizenthom]

Because no-one is necessarily rejecting him. They just don't believe in him. There's a massive difference.

Not really. What is more disrespectful than to deny another person's or being's entire EXISTENCE? If you deny His existence, you are denying that He even HAS a Son, let alone that He sent His Son to die for you. If you deny His existence, you deny that eternal communion with Him is even possible; how can you then expect Him to offer it to you? If you deny His existence, you deny that His Holy Spirit CAN indwell within you and change your life; why should He force it upon you?

What you're saying is no different from what people who believe there IS a God but refuse to obey Him say: "I want to live my life however I want, sin willfully and repeatedly, treat other human beings badly, and insult God's very name daily, but I still deserve all the same rewards in the end." It's nonsensical.

 

[citizenthom]

Why should the X-Men save people that hate/reject/fear them?

The X-Men aren't perfect, either: they have their own failures and biases (which is in fact one of the central ideas of the early X-Men comics). God IS perfect. His very nature makes communion with sinful creatures impossible. The only way for such communion to happen is for those sins to be paid for--which cannot happen for people who refuse to allow it to happen.

 

[Skavau]

Not really. What is more disrespectful than to deny another person's or being's entire EXISTENCE?

If it isn't done for the purpose of causing disrespect (which would then be another issue entirely as it would be an extreme version of blanking) then any hurt the 'victim' feels is purely their own. It certainly isn't illegal in any free nation to claim that someone does not exist and no-one would insist that anyone caught denying the existence of someone is deserving of a jail sentence.

If you deny His existence, you are denying that He even HAS a Son, let alone that He sent His Son to die for you. If you deny His existence, you deny that eternal communion with Him is even possible; how can you then expect Him to offer it to you?

That is not the argument. The argument is that no-one is deserving of eternal torture. It is not based on demanding or expecting salvation. It is based on the rightful contempt of torture purely for thought-crime or our own imperfect nature.

What you're saying is no different from what people who believe there IS a God but refuse to obey Him say: "I want to live my life however I want, sin willfully and repeatedly, treat other human beings badly, and insult God's very name daily, but I still deserve all the same rewards in the end." It's nonsensical.

Firstly, the claim that any atheist is demanding eternal life is a strawman. No-one has said any such thing and anyone who might have done so would have been wise enough to seperate such a requirement from the argument against eternal torture. I mean really, this argument is as ridiculous as a police state complaining that those it subjugates and tortures just want a government position.

Secondly, I don't recognise the concept of 'sin' but I do recognise behavioural constraints and they are absolutely valid when dealing with other free agents in a civil society. I have never insisted that I must or should be allowed to live without concessions or recognition of said behavioural constraints, I never would and it has nothing to do with my argument against hell. The fact you choose to smear atheists in this regard though by suggesting implicitly that we would all like to be allowed to treat other human beings badly says a lot for your temperament and your bigotry.

Thirdly and finally, regarding blasphemy. A victimless pseudo-crime.

 

[razeontherock]

So how is this just that if a christain who would lets say killed someone and asked for forgiveness would go to heaven and an atheist who has been good all there life, has never put themself first go to tell?

Please, answers?

2 sets of false assumptions. "Morality" is not a term G-d ever speaks to mankind about. The fact that what we perceive as "good" differs from His POV, is something we will all have to deal with. It occurs to me that the verse "our righteousness is as filthy rags" is not something you have any insight into yet?

 

[citizenthom]

If it isn't done for the purpose of causing disrespect

People who favored the 3/5s clause in the Constitution, Jim Crow laws, anti-miscegination laws, and the like made the same argument: "it's not that we don't like black people, we just think they exist differently. No disrespect."

It is disrespectful, objectively and realistically, and I think you know that.

It certainly isn't illegal in any free nation to claim that someone does not exist and no-one would insist that anyone caught denying the existence of someone is deserving of a jail sentence.

You keep comparing human law to God's law as though God is bound by it--and even, for that matter, as though human laws are universal and unchanging. What is the argumentative purpose of those comparisons? Are you arguing that the laws of nations you choose to favor are the right laws and therefore God must submit to them? Is the absurdity of that argument not self-evident to you?

That is not the argument. The argument is that no-one is deserving of eternal torture.

That argument is wrong. "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." The imperfect cannot commune with the perfect. The "eternal torture" you refer to is not God-inflicted: it is the natural result of knowing once and for all your separation from God at the moment of death. That's the misconception here: that God is "sending" you somewhere, when in fact Hell is just a natural consequence of the nature of existence. We "deserve" Hell, because Hell is where we're headed absent divine intervention. God provided a way for imperfect beings to have their imperfections erased, through Christ.

And again, why should He force that gift upon you when you refuse to accept it willingly? Your only answer so far is, "BECAUSE I SAID SO!"

 

[citizenthom]

BTW, as to the repeated bolding of the phrase thought-crime, I already addressed that earlier in the thread: thoughts can be and often are evil. The only reason humans do not punish thought-crime is that we cannot accurately discern either thoughts or their moral merit. God, with His perfect knowledge, can--which is why heart-sins are still sins against His perfect nature.

In any case all you're arguing is, "God is not cool by my standards." Which is hardly an argument at all coming from an imperfect being judging a perfect one.

 

[razeontherock]

Being a christain does not make you an anti-atheist...

This is an interesting mixture of truth and falsehood. "We wrestle not against flesh and blood." C isn't against any human, but it certainly is opposed to certain philosophies, worldviews, mindsets ...

Here's an interesting concept perhaps no one has ever exposed you to:

every member of our species has working within us, in addition to ourselves, from time to time, some elements of G-d Himself. We can choose to consistently reject that outright, although I think that's non-existent or at least very rare, even in the worst examples of humanity. How we choose to respond is what the Judgment is based on, the fact that we have this opportunity at all is solely due to Jesus Christ, and all Judgment is given to Him.

 

[Skavau]

People who favored the 3/5s clause in the Constitution, Jim Crow laws, anti-miscegination laws, and the like made the same argument: "it's not that we don't like black people, we just think they exist differently. No disrespect."

What is this babble? We're talking about whether it is disrespectful to believe that someone does not exist. We are not talking about racial segregation and it is not comparable to anything here. In any case you have not addressed the arguments at all. We do not say that anyone who believes that someone does not exist should held accountable for it in a legal sense. We do not threaten those who do not recognise the existence of the President of the United States or the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom.

It is disrespectful, objectively and realistically, and I think you know that.

I am quite sure those accused of not existing might feel hurt by it - but it isn't and should not be illegal and since it is not your analogy and therefore argument on this point falls apart.

You keep comparing human law to God's law as though God is bound by it--and even, for that matter, as though human laws are universal and unchanging.

You bought up behavioural standards in a credulous attempt to justify God's hurt feelings as reason enough to torture those who do not recognise his existence. I then responded by bringing up civil law objections. We do not threaten nor criminalise the questioning of people's existence and no-one remotely concerned with freedom of expression or thought would even consider it with one apparent exception: When God is involved. That was my point and you've demonstrated it brilliantly.

What is the argumentative purpose of those comparisons? Are you arguing that the laws of nations you choose to favor are the right laws and therefore God must submit to them?

Given I don't actually believe in a God, I don't think a God ought or ought not submit to anything. In any case, if you make God unaccountable and grant him permission to do as he pleases then you effectively negate all morality to nothing more than the arbitrary decisions of God. God could literally decree anything and you would argue that it was good. You would reduce morality to a system of obedience.

That argument is wrong. "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." The imperfect cannot commune with the perfect.

We have all 'sinned' and are all destined to sin as a consequence of our imperfection be it designed, accidental or the result of caprice. We cannot help our inherent imperfection and can only try to act as best we can with recognition of that. I recognise my imperfection and strive to do good. I do it without the apparent prerequisite of vicarious redemption and even a lifetime of perpetual failure and perpetual sinning does not warrant eternal torture. It is an infinitely disproportionate punishment that is imposed upon me by my birthright.

Born wretched, commanded to be perfect.

The "eternal torture" you refer to is not God-inflicted: it is the natural result of knowing once and for all your separation from God at the moment of death.

Then God should remedy it by removing said natural result.

That's the misconception here: that God is "sending" you somewhere, when in fact Hell is just a natural consequence of the nature of existence. We "deserve" Hell, because Hell is where we're headed absent divine intervention. God provided a way for imperfect beings to have their imperfections erased, through Christ.

Then God's intervention is lacking. It proposes a thought-based scenario for an apparently moral-based dilemma. It is like a manager responding to a lacklustre workforce by offering them reprieve and absolving their accountability so long as they accept a specific management doctrine as true. It is frankly incoherent.

And again, why should He force that gift upon you when you refuse to accept it willingly? Your only answer so far is, "BECAUSE I SAID SO!"

Do you read? I have said repeatedly that the argument is not about demanding heaven but about resisting hell. Again, have you read what I have said?

 

[Skavau]

BTW, as to the repeated bolding of the phrase thought-crime, I already addressed that earlier in the thread: thoughts can be and often are evil. The only reason humans do not punish thought-crime is that we cannot accurately discern either thoughts or their moral merit.

I should hope that an inability to discern thought patterns is not the reason we do not impose thought-crime. Otherwise we're sleepwalking into a dystopian future where upon reaching the technology to do it, we will.

Can you imagine anything more nightmarish than a society where your very thoughts are monitored? Apparently you're now beginning apologetics for it.

 

[razeontherock]

vicarious redemption

Then God should remedy it by removing said natural result.


Then God's intervention is lacking. It proposes a thought-based scenario for an apparently moral-based dilemma. It is like a manager responding to a lacklustre workforce by offering them reprieve and absolving their accountability so long as they accept a specific management doctrine as true. It is frankly incoherent.

These 3 statements of yours demonstrate that what you object to is your own misunderstanding. The solution would seem to be to understand the subject matter better, rather than arguing against why your misperceptions are wrong.

I suggest a good place to start is wth intellectual understanding of how "the natural result is removed;" but that is merely a first step.

 

[razeontherock]

I should hope that an inability to discern thought patterns is not the reason we do not impose [punishment upon] thought-crime.

If you intended as I inserted to make sense out of your sentence, then agreed!

 

[BleedingHeart]

God IS perfect.

Yes...by his own standard. By Stalin's own standard, the dude was probably perfect too, or so close to it you might as well use the word. By Kant's standard--which was based off the Golden Rule--neither of them were.

 

[CaliforniaSun]

Not really. What is more disrespectful than to deny another person's or being's entire EXISTENCE? If you deny His existence, you are denying that He even HAS a Son, let alone that He sent His Son to die for you. If you deny His existence, you deny that eternal communion with Him is even possible; how can you then expect Him to offer it to you? If you deny His existence, you deny that His Holy Spirit CAN indwell within you and change your life; why should He force it upon you?

What you're saying is no different from what people who believe there IS a God but refuse to obey Him say: "I want to live my life however I want, sin willfully and repeatedly, treat other human beings badly, and insult God's very name daily, but I still deserve all the same rewards in the end." It's nonsensical.

Consider this:

"A growing body of social science research reveals that atheists, and non-religious people in general, are far from the unsavory beings many assume them to be. On basic questions of morality and human decency — issues such as governmental use of torture, the death penalty, punitive hitting of children, racism, sexism, homophobia, anti-Semitism, environmental degradation or human rights — the irreligious tend to be more ethical than their religious peers, particularly compared with those who describe themselves as very religious.

Consider that at the societal level, murder rates are far lower in secularized nations such as Japan or Sweden than they are in the much more religious United States, which also has a much greater portion of its population in prison. Even within this country, those states with the highest levels of church attendance, such as Louisiana and Mississippi, have significantly higher murder rates than far less religious states such as Vermont and Oregon.

As individuals, atheists tend to score high on measures of intelligence, especially verbal ability and scientific literacy. They tend to raise their children to solve problems rationally, to make up their own minds when it comes to existential questions and to obey the golden rule. They are more likely to practice safe sex than the strongly religious are, and are less likely to be nationalistic or ethnocentric. They value freedom of thought."

Paul/Zuckerman

 

[BleedingHeart]

"In any case, if you make God unaccountable and grant him permission to do as he pleases then you effectively negate all morality to nothing more than the arbitrary decisions of God. God could literally decree anything and you would argue that it was good. You would reduce morality to a system of obedience."

Which I argued a couple pages ago but nobody seemed to listen to. Then again, I remember DomainRider argued it at one point, hence the sig, and nobody responded to that point either.

@CitizenThom
God controls everything, created everything, can do anything he wants and yet he's not responsible for anything bad that happens, including the creation of hell?

" 'A growing body of social science research reveals that atheists, and non-religious people in general, are far from the unsavory beings many assume them to be. On basic questions of morality and human decency — issues such as governmental use of torture, the death penalty, punitive hitting of children, racism, sexism, homophobia, anti-Semitism, environmental degradation or human rights — the irreligious tend to be more ethical than their religious peers, particularly compared with those who describe themselves as very religious.

Consider that at the societal level, murder rates are far lower in secularized nations such as Japan or Sweden than they are in the much more religious United States, which also has a much greater portion of its population in prison. Even within this country, those states with the highest levels of church attendance, such as Louisiana and Mississippi, have significantly higher murder rates than far less religious states such as Vermont and Oregon.

As individuals, atheists tend to score high on measures of intelligence, especially verbal ability and scientific literacy. They tend to raise their children to solve problems rationally, to make up their own minds when it comes to existential questions and to obey the golden rule. They are more likely to practice safe sex than the strongly religious are, and are less likely to be nationalistic or ethnocentric. They value freedom of thought.'

Paul/Zuckerman "
None of which matters because they don't believe in God and are therefore evil.

 

[Rajni]

What is more disrespectful than to deny another person's or being's entire EXISTENCE?

So, let's say someone denies the existence of Isis. Are they being deliberately disrespectful, or are they being (what they would consider) merely realistic? I mean, there are things I don't believe exist and I don't mean to be disrespectful about it. Aren't there things you don't believe exist? If so, do you think it is out of disrespect or a simple need for further evidence/clarification?
.

 

[razeontherock]

"In any case, if you make God unaccountable and grant him permission to do as he pleases then you effectively negate all morality to nothing more than the arbitrary decisions of God. God could literally decree anything and you would argue that it was good. You would reduce morality to a system of obedience."

Apparently it was citizen Thom who wrote that? [ETA: Scavau] Anyway my response is more concise:

1) G-d is Judge.
2) Why confuse that with morality?
3) Why pretend G-d's decisions are arbitrary. If you were hyper intelligent and uber conscientious about everything you did and some little peon hurled insults like this at you, you wouldn't be inclined to take it too kindly.

 

[BleedingHeart]

Apparently it was citizen Thom who wrote that? Anyway my response is more concise:

1) G-d is Judge.
2) Why confuse that with morality?
3) Why pretend G-d's decisions are arbitrary. If you were hyper intelligent and uber conscientious about everything you did and some little peon hurled insults like this at you, you wouldn't be inclined to take it too kindly.

No Skav wrote is as a response.
1. Aren't judges supposed to be elected or appointed by a superior? What kind of judge is a self-appointed judge? A king. A dictator. Someone with no oversight. You know the expression, who watches the watchmen? Oh wait, I forgot that was just our earthly laws.
2. I didn't, because for Christians he's not a judge. Correct me if I'm wrong, but as a Christian you believe God is perfect right? That He can do no wrong, no matter what He does and who He does it too. That gives us the TV trope known as Unfortunate Implications.
3. Actually I probably wouldn't care. I'd be too busy playing on the Wii and drinking Samuel Adams and not getting a hangover because I'm freaking God.

 

[Woden84]

Not really. What is more disrespectful than to deny another person's or being's entire EXISTENCE?

How about making the single most important thing you can do in life is believing in someone while leaving no more evidence for that someone than Gandalf the Grey? I also have to echo chaela here. How dare you disrespect Zeus, Thor, Woden, Baldr, Ra, Aphrodite, Isis, Quetzalcoatl, Brighid..... I can go on all day, but you get the point.

Can you imagine anything more nightmarish than a society where your very thoughts are monitored? Apparently you're now beginning apologetics for it.

There was a Star Trek episode that dealt with this. Someone bumped into Belanna so (being half Klingon) her first thought was to inflict violence on that person. Though of course, not being a non-sentient animal that is a slave to her instincts she forgave the guy who bumped into her and moved on. The alien race tried to bring her up on charges (if I remember correctly, the penalty was death). These aliens though, at least had a semi-decent excuse. They were telepathic and were so weak that Belanna's thought actually caused one of the aliens to kill someone. They were apparently powerless against acting on someone else's thought.

So is the god that you guys worship as weak as that species of aliens that he can't help but be influenced by the thoughts of others?

 

[razeontherock]

1. Aren't judges supposed to be elected or appointed by a superior?

There is no superior. Kinda, *by definition* ya know?

2. I didn't, because for Christians he's not a judge. Correct me if I'm wrong,

You asked for it. You're wrong! Go no further than the Creed which defines Christianity on CF ...

but as a Christian you believe God is perfect right? That He can do no wrong, no matter what He does and who He does it too. That gives us the TV trope known as Unfortunate Implications.

You truly have NO IDEA. Fact is, G-d's will is not our glorification; not in this life, anyway. Humility is the order of the day. Either by choice, or, "the Lord will provide."

3. I'd be too busy playing on the Wii and drinking Samuel Adams and not getting a hangover because I'm freaking God.

Yeah well, it's also a good thing for you that I'm not G-d either! We'd make a mess out of things differently, but we'd both, make a mess out of things.