Atheists go to hell even if they are good!?

[Doveaman]

So you don't believe in the myth of Hell as a place if eternal punishment?

"Eternal punishment" can mean that the result of the punishment (death) is eternal, but the method used for the punishment (fire) is temporary. In this sense I believe in eternal punishment.

"Eternal punishing" might be a better term for what you are referring to.

 

[Rajni]

But a baptism symbolizes a "washing away of" sin. So "one huge, long baptism" of mankind would be a "washing away of" sinful men and women (imo), just as it was in Noah's flood.

"God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water, and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also" - 1 Peter 3:20-21.

I realize that; I presented it the way I did just by way of analogy, not in order to suggest it was the Official Church Stance™ on full-immersion baptism.

 

[razeontherock]

Y'know Raze, people wouldn't have to assume what you mean if you actually just -said- what you mean. Vagueness is not a successful debate tactic.

This is a terrible excuse for assumption. Neither will I be controlled by your demand to write a book answering everything about existence in detail. Even if I could. The topic is things that are not clear, and language does not convey the subject matter well at all. And I'm not about to engage in debate. So ... your comment here seems pretty bankrupt, sorry to say.

 

[razeontherock]

You said you don't believe in infinite punishment, so I asked you if you belive Hell is eternal. How can you not follow the connection between the two?

Here is what you said:

"Why does an all powerful god even allow sin to occur is his punishment is infinite?" Post #147. Check the context. See that it is nothing even remotely close to what you present here.

 

[CaliforniaSun]

This is a terrible excuse for assumption. Neither will I be controlled by your demand to write a book answering everything about existence in detail. Even if I could. The topic is things that are not clear, and language does not convey the subject matter well at all. And I'm not about to engage in debate. So ... your comment here seems pretty bankrupt, sorry to say.

YouTube - Charles Barkley - "That's turrible" The Song

 

[razeontherock]

there's a verse that says He deliberately bound everyone into disobedience for the purpose of having mercy on (that very same) everyone.

Chapter, verse? This is a terrible distortion and while you may be able to fool some of the people most of the time, you won't EVER fool me with stuff like this Let's go on and look at your ramifications:

An analogy might be the pastor (representing God in this case) who deliberately submerges a baptizee (representing mankind in this case) under the water (sin in this case) for the purpose of bringing him back up out of it again (mercy in this case). Mainstream churchdom's stance on partial salvation would essentially have the pastor holding the person under the water till they drowned, never pulling them back up out of it again (a scenario I disagree with quite strongly).

Hopefully you realize your analogy doesn't portray the people or the events accurately. Then again, you don't claim they do, you're just making a point, right? Well the point is G-d destroyed everybody on the planet, except for 8 people. And He really agonized over even saving those 8. THAT follows your analogy! And is quite different from the Universalism you depict below:

So, in a way, I see the entire history of man from start to finish as one huge, long (for those of us still in the dimension of time & space) baptism. No one is going to be drowned; God will pull them all back up out of the water into new life (imo).

That'd be nice. It sure is an easier Gospel to preach!

Now maybe we should examine what the Bible actually says about your opening statement in this post? Responsibility for our actions always remains with us; He did not "bind us to disobey." This is the point of the very first story in the Bible ...

 

[ajunkyarddog]

You'll get lots of different answers from christians. Some might say (oasis) that you will not be saved unless you accept Jesus Christ as your lord and saviour, regardless of your "works" as they often like to say. Others will say that they believe good people go to heaven, and may not say you definitely need Jesus to do so. Some christians will say its not their place to judge so they can't be sure. So I am afraid your question may not get you anywhere, I think a more important one to ask is why there is so much diversion among Christians on these fundamental issues when they get all their knowledge from the same book.

Have you never thought that some items from the bible that people tend to have their own interpretation of that varies from group to group is stuff that really does not matter HOW you interpret it?
I do not claim to have a complete understanding of everything. I could not ever. There are some things we just don't know. I could interpret the bible as saying athiests are definitely not going to heaven, but it really wouldn't matter WHAT I interpret it as. As a person that follows the bible, I do all that I can to be a good person that follows the rules within it. The interpretation of whether or not athiests can go to heaven really has zero effect on my life and my trust in the bible. It's a need-to-know, and I don't need-to-know.
Why get so hung up on these things? It is not at all a "point" in the favor of athiesm. It just does not matter that people have different interpretations. Definitely missing the big picture.

 

[razeontherock]

Is there something that was not created by God? If "no", then everything in anyone is from God and therefore good. If "yes", then who is the creator?

Adam was made in G-d's image. Adam's children were made in ... Adam's image.

 

[razeontherock]

Have you never thought that some items from the bible that people tend to have their own interpretation of that varies from group to group is stuff that really does not matter HOW you interpret it?
I do not claim to have a complete understanding of everything. I could not ever. There are some things we just don't know. I could interpret the bible as saying athiests are definitely not going to heaven, but it really wouldn't matter WHAT I interpret it as. As a person that follows the bible, I do all that I can to be a good person that follows the rules within it. The interpretation of whether or not athiests can go to heaven really has zero effect on my life and my trust in the bible. It's a need-to-know, and I don't need-to-know.
Why get so hung up on these things? It is not at all a "point" in the favor of athiesm. It just does not matter that people have different interpretations. Definitely missing the big picture.

This is pretty much what I tried to say too. Let's see if anybody wants to hear it?

 

[Jade Margery]

This is a terrible excuse for assumption. Neither will I be controlled by your demand to write a book answering everything about existence in detail. Even if I could. The topic is things that are not clear, and language does not convey the subject matter well at all. And I'm not about to engage in debate. So ... your comment here seems pretty bankrupt, sorry to say.

When a person can't understand what you are saying, they are going to make an assumption based on what they could figure out. When many people can't understand you, maybe it's time you either try to be clearer or stop talking. No one's demanding you write a book, we're just asking you to explain yourself more clearly. And frankly, we're pretty sick of this sort of thing:

Raze: Makes statement

Other people: Respond to statement

Raze: You're assuming I said something I didn't! Stop assuming things about what I say!

Other people: Okay, what did you really mean to say?

Raze: How dare you demand that I tell you what I mean!

Other people: Okay, well, is -this- what you meant?

Raze: No! Stop making assumptions!


Now, if this was one person you were bumping heads with over and over again, it might be safe to say that you just can't understand each other. But as it is several different people on different threads all having the same kind of exchange, this seems to point at you having some trouble communicating your ideas clearly, and we're all doing our best to muddle through it and try to have some kind of conversation with you.

 

[CaliforniaSun]

Have you never thought that some items from the bible that people tend to have their own interpretation of that varies from group to group is stuff that really does not matter HOW you interpret it?
I do not claim to have a complete understanding of everything. I could not ever. There are some things we just don't know. I could interpret the bible as saying athiests are definitely not going to heaven, but it really wouldn't matter WHAT I interpret it as. As a person that follows the bible, I do all that I can to be a good person that follows the rules within it. The interpretation of whether or not athiests can go to heaven really has zero effect on my life and my trust in the bible. It's a need-to-know, and I don't need-to-know.
Why get so hung up on these things? It is not at all a "point" in the favor of athiesm. It just does not matter that people have different interpretations. Definitely missing the big picture.

I do agree with you that religion is characteristically divergent.

 

[razeontherock]

When a person can't understand what you are saying, they are going to make an assumption based on what they could figure out.

If the way you depict the exchange were accurate, we'd have no problem. Instead, people (not saying you) project their assumptions, which are things I've already disagreed with. I find that inherently dishonest!

What you're observing is that I lurk and point out things that misrepresent what I'm knowledgeable about. Please don't mistake that for being able to transfer my experience to a whole online community, ok?

 

[Ampersand]

A logic chain of thought is not an assumption. Some people (not saying you) deliberately avoid questions they know they can't answer by trying to shift attention away from their inability to answer the question.

 

[CaliforniaSun]

If the way you depict the exchange were accurate, we'd have no problem. Instead, people (not saying you) project their assumptions, which are things I've already disagreed with. I find that inherently dishonest!

What you're observing is that I lurk and point out things that misrepresent what I'm knowledgeable about. Please don't mistake that for being able to transfer my experience to a whole online community, ok?

IMO, this does fairly describe your exchanges. It's not a case of people necesarrily projecting assumptions, as it is actually trying to understand what it is you're saying. I don't think people are trying to misrepresent what you're saying, so much as they aren't sure what you're trying to say. And when you come up against someone with a valid counterpoint, you resort to condescending ad hom, and red herring. Most of us find this inherently dishonest.

If you're truly interested in promoting a discussion, you may want to take this to heart. If not, well, troll away... after all, it's just the internetz.

 

[StThomasMore]

I really dislike the concept of Hell. I am really glad I don't have it in my belief system.

actually, Hell is quite prominent in early Judaism. Have you read Josepheus's discourse on Hades to the Greeks?

Modern Judaism tried to stomp out the issue of Gehenna/hell because of its affinity with christianity. But throughout most early Jewish tradition the issue of Gehenna was quite real. You find it all over earlier Jewish literature like the Midrash, Talmud, Sefer Aggadah, and Louis Ginzberg's "Legends of the Jews", which is a compendium of OT biblical tradition.

 

[CaliforniaSun]

actually, Hell is quite prominent in early Judaism. Have you read Josepheus's discourse on Hades to the Greeks?

Modern Judaism tried to stomp out the issue of Gehenna/hell because of its affinity with christianity. But throughout most early Jewish tradition the issue of Gehenna was quite real. You find it all over earlier Jewish literature like the Midrash, Talmud, Sefer Aggadah, and Louis Ginzberg's "Legends of the Jews", which is a compendium of OT biblical tradition.

I thought Gehenna was where they burned trash on the outskirts of Jerusalem.

 

[SonOfTheWest]

I thought Gehenna was where they burned trash on the outskirts of Jerusalem.

For that matter heaven was described as in the sky and the hell(as underworld) as under the earth in early jewish tradition. The modern evangelical annihilationism is just that, relatively modern.

 

[razeontherock]

actually, Hell is quite prominent in early Judaism. Have you read Josepheus's discourse on Hades to the Greeks?

Modern Judaism tried to stomp out the issue of Gehenna/hell because of its affinity with christianity. But throughout most early Jewish tradition the issue of Gehenna was quite real. You find it all over earlier Jewish literature like the Midrash, Talmud, Sefer Aggadah, and Louis Ginzberg's "Legends of the Jews", which is a compendium of OT biblical tradition.

Well, this is a strange twist! Jews say one thing about Jewish history, and Catholics another?

 

[razeontherock]

IMO, this does fairly describe your exchanges. It's not a case of people necesarrily projecting assumptions, as it is actually trying to understand what it is you're saying. I don't think people are trying to misrepresent what you're saying, so much as they aren't sure what you're trying to say. And when you come up against someone with a valid counterpoint, you resort to condescending ad hom, and red herring. Most of us find this inherently dishonest.

If you're truly interested in promoting a discussion, you may want to take this to heart.

I'm not sure if I should say think you? I do need to point out that a counterpoint with even a shred of validity, I address with excruciating thoroughness and patience. What you see as red herring is comparing things you don't recognize as comparable, and you choose not to look for the connection. What you see as ad hom is when I compare the error to a human trait, rather than a thing.

 

[Jade Margery]

I'm not sure if I should say think you?

Sarcasm? Condescension? It is hard to tell, but even harder to tell what you are 'not sure' you should say thank you for. Since you don't say.

I do need to point out that a counterpoint with even a shred of validity, I address with excruciating thoroughness and patience.

Patronizing, and also possibly not a sentence. At least not a grammatically correct one. Unless you're Yoda. Maybe. At best it's confusingly worded.

What you see as red herring is comparing things you don't recognize as comparable,

Perhaps because we can't tell what you're trying to compare

and you choose not to look for the connection.

Condescending and assumptive. You assume that others aren't choosing to look, when by our very queries for clarity we prove that we are.

What you see as ad hom

Assumptions, again. I would, for instance, take an insult like 'english isn't your first language, is it' as an ad hom. Ad homs are attacks on the person you're debating with rather than the ideas they have, and are usually unrelated to the subject of the debate itself (as above).

is when I compare the error to a human trait, rather than a thing.

Absolutely no idea what you mean by this. What error? Which trait? Give an example. Order your points logically and explain them. Stop talking in riddles. Stop being vague. Because really, this is getting boring.