Atheists go to hell even if they are good!?

[BleedingHeart]

Baseless?

You guys all walk, talk and group think so similar, it's impossible to see you as not homogenized. Notice that Skavua went the starving babies in africa routine with his starving children routine.

C'mon now, face the truth.

Another baseless accusation with no evidence.
Do Ayn Rand and Christopher Hitchens think similar? How about Joseph Stalin and Richard Dawkins? I've explained to you already that atheists can be Objectivists, Communists, Socialists, and Capitalists. There are even some on this VERY forum that identify themselves as Republicans. It's perfectly easy to see us as something other than homogenized unless you are a moron...and you are.

I also find it hilarious that you accuse us of group think when all Christians are expected to think the same as well, at least by you. How many Christians go "Jesus' sacrifice proofs God loves us" routine. Probably all of them right?

 

[razeontherock]

What on earth does this have to do with free will? Absolutely nothing...

It's not my definition. Thirty seconds of searching on Google will net you dozens of links that define free will similarly to what I presented.

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.

 

[Rajni]

Does anyone claim the Pope is any sort of Prophet?

In the sense that they claim to speak for God rather than relying on their own human mind, they're one and the same,
in my book.

 

[Rajni]

Needing Him and being responsible for our own actions are 2 different things. Quite a lot came with His giving man dominion, and included in that is your in front of a mack truck scenario.

[FONT=verdana,sans-serif]Hmmm.... and I thought being a child of God was something Christians
grew [/FONT]into [FONT=verdana,sans-serif](hence the becoming a Christian)[/FONT] [FONT=verdana,sans-serif]rather than [/FONT]out of.
[FONT=verdana,sans-serif]
At any rate, if the individual is in the habit of running into the path of the
proverbial Mack truck, they cannot very well be seen as
mature/responsible enough for their own actions that they no longer
need Divine intervention, can they?

[/FONT]

 

[Rajni]

It's not "love me or else." It's that Love burns out the other options. We see this throughout Scripture.

All other options except, conveniently enough, the toss-em-in-hell one, eh?

 

[Rajni]

"This is how it will be at the end of the age. The angels will come and separate the wicked from the righteous and throw them into the fiery furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth." - Matt 13:49-50.

Is "endless hell" the only context in which that verse must be
understood? I mean, over the span of the average earthly life, there are
plenty of opportunities for weeping and teeth-gnashing.

Also, must suffering necessarily be forever to be worth avoiding?

 

[Rajni]

In the non-essential matters of Christianity there should be liberty in the sense that we can still be saved even if we disagree on those matters, such as the age of the earth or the size of the flood or Christ' birth date, etc.

In the essential matters of Christianity there should be unity because, to my knowledge, Christ is the only way to salvation: “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” - John 14:6. Those Christians who are saved would obviously have been inspired by God with the fundamentals of salvation and would therefore be united in those essential matters.

Of course, there might not be much in the way of unity as far as what
is considered "essential".

Jesus said that He is The Way (as well as The Truth and The Life), and
that there is no other way. Well, if there truly is no other way -- if
there is no other way out there to be found, at all -- then whatever
Way all mankind currently is on is, by default, the correct path (the
Way); there is no other path in existence on which one could possibly
be.

Also, as Ecclesiastes 12:7 points out, the spirit of a person supposedly
returns to God who gave it. This indicates to me that everyone's spirit,
in order to return to God who gave it, must pass through Christ, since
no one comes to God but by Him.

 

[Rajni]

This is simply not true of the 'spiritual' where eternal torture, if it did exist would be under the will of God and therefore be a moral evil. I don't distinguish between intelligent agents acting unjustly either in reality or in fantasy.

Not only is God's eternally tormenting people unjust and immoral, but
if God doesn't like sin/evil to begin with, why would He want to
perpetually preserve it in a shrine called "hell" (or "Lake of Fire")? I don't
understand that...

 

[razeontherock]

In the sense that they claim to speak for God rather than relying on their own human mind, they're one and the same,
in my book.

Ah, so support for the RC claims that Pr's are "their own Pope." One that has no recourse but to rely on their own human mind is not a Christian, by definition. I'm reminded of Tyndale's statement that he would make the boy that drives the plow to understand Scripture better than the ... religious elitist confronting him.

 

[razeontherock]

[FONT=verdana,sans-serif]Hmmm.... and I thought being a child of God was something Christians
grew [/FONT]into [FONT=verdana,sans-serif](hence the becoming a Christian)[/FONT] [FONT=verdana,sans-serif]rather than [/FONT]out of.
[FONT=verdana,sans-serif]
At any rate, if the individual is in the habit of running into the path of the
proverbial Mack truck, they cannot very well be seen as
mature/responsible enough for their own actions that they no longer
need Divine intervention, can they?

[/FONT]

This is a most useful illustration! We don't grow into being His child. (Qualifier: conversion can definitely be an ongoing process, not necessarily a snap decision) Once His child, we grow out of childhood and into maturity.

The context that brought us here was the suggestion that G-d should not even let us near the dangerous situation. This is directly refuted by all aspects of life as we know it. Taking that evidence and concluding there is no Father is rather like an ostritch; better is to recognize the Father must be different than our preconceptions.

So coming full circle, a literal child is to learn about Mack trucks and such from their literal parents. This is consistent with Biblical dominion. While our parents are imperfect, they give us an idea of God the Father, and to some extent prepare us to interact with Him.

 

[razeontherock]

All other options except, conveniently enough, the toss-em-in-hell one, eh?

No, that is the only option, and Love burns that one out, of OUR options.

 

[razeontherock]

]Jesus said that He is The Way (as well as The Truth and The Life), and
that there is no other way. Well, if there truly is no other way -- if
there is no other way out there to be found, at all -- then whatever
Way all mankind currently is on is, by default, the correct path (the
Way); there is no other path in existence on which one could possibly
be.

YOUR point makes sense, but only in this context - which rips Jesus' statement out of it's context. (Which is coming to the Father, not existence)

Interesting to see a glimpse into a Universalist's mind though.

]
Also, as Ecclesiastes 12:7 points out, the spirit of a person supposedly
returns to God who gave it. This indicates to me that everyone's spirit,
in order to return to God who gave it, must pass through Christ, since
no one comes to God but by Him.

This is not what it is saying. It is saying the person is in the grave, with no animating force. Whether there is any separate concept of soul accounted for here is unclear.

 

[razeontherock]

Not only is God's eternally tormenting people unjust and immoral, but
if God doesn't like sin/evil to begin with, why would He want to
perpetually preserve it in a shrine called "hell" (or "Lake of Fire")? I don't
understand that...

There is no sin in hell. Someone recently asked about this, and it is a reconciliation, of sorts.

 

[Zaac]

Zaac, I've already answered this lie. No-one is 'rejecting' Christianity anymore than you are rejecting Islam. You simply don't believe that Islam is true like atheists do not believe that Christianity is true.

I certainly don't desire to go to hell and it is a lie that you would suggest that it is chosen by atheists.

If you willingly reject God's truth, then you willingly decide to go to hell. You've heard the Gospel. You know what God says will take place for those who reject Him.

So you are indeed rejecting Christ and his way.

Your reasons for rejecting the truth are your own. But you do know God's truth and continue to reject it.

 

[Zaac]

Because in the context it was used in by Zaac (which you appeared to be defending) suggested that all atheists secretly know that God exists and reject him and his promises anyway.

They do know He exists by the things of nature and they CHOOSE to reject Him.

And where on earth did I say anything about malicious intent?

 

[SonOfTheWest]

Course if you don't follow the Middle Way you are destined to be perpetually reincarnated, possibly as a hungry ghost or in a hell so yeah.....yeah *peter griffin voice*

 

[razeontherock]

You've heard the Gospel.

you do know God's truth and continue to reject it.

In defense of not only Skavau but many other non-believers here, I'm not sure it's true that they do know God's truth, or that they've actually heard the Gospel. That word "heard" has very specific meaning, as Scripture applies it in this context. To illustrate my point, concoct the impossible scenario of all the unbelievers here being present for Paul's all night sermon where somebody fell out of a balcony, died, and came back to life. Forget the miracle.

I think a different level of "hearing" may well take place in that scenario, which many here have not experienced.

 

[Rajni]

The context that brought us here was the suggestion that G-d should not even let us near the dangerous situation. This is directly refuted by all aspects of life as we know it.

However, when that dangerous situation involves endless torment,
that's a whole 'nother ball of wax. An all-powerful, all-knowing deity
allowing His child to "maturely" decide to throw himself in front of a
Mack truck that will, for ever after, be running over him doesn't add up.
Backing up even further (not the truck, the concept, lol! ), this
all-knowing deity created that person knowing full well that this person
would reject Him resulting in being an eternal hit-and-run project.

So coming full circle, a literal child is to learn about Mack trucks and such from their literal parents. This is consistent with Biblical dominion. While our parents are imperfect, they give us an idea of God the Father, and to some extent prepare us to interact with Him.

Unless the parent happens to be of the Mommy Dearest variety, I don't
think the parent(s) would effectively prepare us for dealing with a
God-the-Father of the hell-raising sort put forward in this thread.

 

[Rajni]

No, that is the only option, and Love burns that one out, of OUR options.

Oh good -- so endless torment is not part of the scenario in your theology, after all?

.

 

[Rajni]

There is no sin in hell. Someone recently asked about this, and it is a reconciliation, of sorts.

Does this mean you see it as more of a restorative process rather than
merely endless torment with no corrective purpose?

If not, why would sinless people be tormented forever?

.