Atheists go to hell even if they are good!?

[razeontherock]

So now you say that eternal damnation / eternal Hell / separation from God is reconcilaiation.

But here you said:


So how can the point of forgiveness be reconciliation, when the point of non-forgiveness is also reconciliation?

And to add to that contradiction:

If eternal damnation is the only way for God to reconcile with "some"... what is the point of forgiveness then?

I see no contradiction. We have a couple edicts: G-d will reconcile all things to Himself, and G-d is Sovereign. (We could add many more, but I think this pegs out the turf well enough?)

G-d's desire is that all men be Saved. You are aware of this?

The Gospel includes this will not happen. You are aware of this? (I do know some versions say otherwise - universalism. To me that appears heretical)

These conditions necessitate that both human results be considered "reconciliation." Love is why it is not a "don't care which" scenario. And also why final Judgment has not been forthcoming, yet. (Won't the doomsday preachers be surprised if the original intent is actually the reversal of the current expansion of the Universe, and refers to the next big bang? All Scripture points to this perfectly, although I'm not saying that is the intended meaning)

 

[ToddNotTodd]

How many assumptions can you make in such a tiny space?

1) You "presented" me with anything
2) I was flummoxed; either partially or completely
3) I don't understand
4) I don't understand YOUR inability to grasp the context, that this discussion is about a Christian concept, on a Christian site
5) You have to assume the emotions of others, via a medium that gives you no clue about that.

1) I did.
2) You were.
3) You don't.
4) Like I first mentioned, it's not a Christian concept. And it of course matters not where we're discussing it.
5) And?

The fact that I've let your inability to talk intelligently about free will and understand simple definitions drag on this long is annoying to me. I'm usually better about pegging the posters that are a waste of time.

So I'll take the high road. I'll allow you to get in the final jabs if that's the kind of person you are. Then I'll refrain from answering. It's like tilting at windmills...

 

[Philothei]

Can we please go back to the OP? I think there is no purpose to this back and forth

 

[razeontherock]

Actually, free will as it is used re: the Gospel has everything to do with the OP. (As it relates to philosophy it has no bearing)

 

[Philothei]

18 “There is no judgment against anyone who believes in him. But anyone who does not believe in him has already been judged for not believing in God’s one and only Son. John 3:16-18

There is a judgment and a penalty for sin. It's impossible to preach the Gospel and separate God's wrath from His love.

Hell is not the place where God has his 'wrath" taken care off... In the EO theology it is a place that God is not present. It is the total desolation...annihilation of any goodness and life. God does not "shine" on this place ...but you can read my previous post I explained it there...

 

[Freodin]

I see no contradiction. We have a couple edicts: G-d will reconcile all things to Himself, and G-d is Sovereign. (We could add many more, but I think this pegs out the turf well enough?)

G-d's desire is that all men be Saved. You are aware of this?

The Gospel includes this will not happen. You are aware of this? (I do know some versions say otherwise - universalism. To me that appears heretical)

These conditions necessitate that both human results be considered "reconciliation." Love is why it is not a "don't care which" scenario. And also why final Judgment has not been forthcoming, yet. (Won't the doomsday preachers be surprised if the original intent is actually the reversal of the current expansion of the Universe, and refers to the next big bang? All Scripture points to this perfectly, although I'm not saying that is the intended meaning)

Yes, I am aware of what the Bible says. And I assert that it includes contradictions.

For example: "God is sovereign." What does that mean? It means that God is the only ruler, he bows to no one, he submits to no one, he is bound by nothing... "...your will be done..."

And what is God's will? "G-d's desire is that all men be Saved."

Who saves? The sovereign God! God's forgiveness! If God forgives you your sins, you are saved. (And as I have shown, even if you ignored it, without any doing on your side.)

Does God forgive and save everyone? No, he doesn't!

So God doesn't do what God wants to do. If that isn't a contradiction, I haven't seen one yet.

And please, please, pretty please... just don't answer that again with "what a mess". Explain why I am wrong. How should I ever learn when you cannot show my mistakes?

 

[ToddNotTodd]

And what is God's will? "G-d's desire is that all men be Saved."

Who saves? The sovereign God! God's forgiveness! If God forgives you your sins, you are saved. (And as I have shown, even if you ignored it, without any doing on your side.)

Does God forgive and save everyone? No, he doesn't!

So God doesn't do what God wants to do. If that isn't a contradiction, I haven't seen one yet.

I'm surprised more Christians aren't Calvinists. They seem to get around a lot of these problems.

 

[razeontherock]

I'm surprised more Christians aren't Calvinists. They seem to get around a lot of these problems.

My first ever chance to explore Calvinism was when finding this site. that means I never encountered any Christian with the nerve to admit to my face they were a Calvinist. They do explain things that are difficult, I'll give them that. They also slander G-d's character. Complex problems have simple answer that are wrong.

 

[razeontherock]

Yes, I am aware of what the Bible says. And I assert that it includes contradictions.

I have found that as long as one is still seeing contradictions, you can't consider you have grasped any of it's meaning. It is a difficult part of the journey, typified by a desert crossing.

For example: "God is sovereign." What does that mean?

As we have just seen, the Bible will often use terms in ways our modern society does not. I think it does not mean some of the things you ascribe here:

It means that God ... is bound by nothing... "...your will be done..."

He gave mankind dominion, and He is bound by that for as long as we live. Of course, he can shorten our lifespan any time He so chooses. Notice that the last part of your quote here was said by a Man, as a deliberate act of His will.

If God forgives you your sins, you are saved. (And as I have shown, even if you ignored it, without any doing on your side.)

No, you haven't shown that. What you did show is that for purposes of our mental health, we can forgive people we need to even w/o their knowledge or consent. This is not Salvation.

So God doesn't do what God wants to do. If that isn't a contradiction, I haven't seen one yet.

I do think it is essential to see your way through this before anyone can experience Salvation. (Just because I think that doesn't make it true I can only speak for my own experience)

Some things of G-d are difficult. Personally, the understanding of any of them transcends words and all human language, and so there is no medium to convey them here. That's ok, because all we can do is point in a direction anyway. It is G-d Himself that reveals, and He can do so in an instant, with breathtaking clarity. That requires certain conditions, and He alone determines those. We mortals can probably help one another in that Dep't more than anywhere else, on this broad subject.

God wanted to actually give dominion to man. That has a limited scope and time, but no one took that away from Him. This does indeed mean there would be certain things He would want, that if our species disobeyed Him He would not get.

I should stop there, to see how we're doing. Can you understand this much, and see how it applies?

 

[ToddNotTodd]

My first ever chance to explore Calvinism was when finding this site. that means I never encountered any Christian with the nerve to admit to my face they were a Calvinist. They do explain things that are difficult, I'll give them that. They also slander G-d's character. Complex problems have simple answer that are wrong.

Check Youtube. There's lots of videos back and forth between Calvinists and non-Calvinists. It's perhaps the most interesting exchanges between Christians I've ever seen. As for slander, I'm guessing they'd say they're the ones not slandering your god's name.

 

[razeontherock]

Yes they would. And they make very strong arguments. They also fail to take into account some very significant portions of Scripture, and refuse to deal with them when they are brought up, as those of us not afraid to think critically are wont to do

 

[Freodin]

I have found that as long as one is still seeing contradictions, you can't consider you have grasped any of it's meaning. It is a difficult part of the journey, typified by a desert crossing.



As we have just seen, the Bible will often use terms in ways our modern society does not. I think it does not mean some of the things you ascribe here:



He gave mankind dominion, and He is bound by that for as long as we live. Of course, he can shorten our lifespan any time He so chooses. Notice that the last part of your quote here was said by a Man, as a deliberate act of His will.



No, you haven't shown that. What you did show is that for purposes of our mental health, we can forgive people we need to even w/o their knowledge or consent. This is not Salvation.



I do think it is essential to see your way through this before anyone can experience Salvation. (Just because I think that doesn't make it true I can only speak for my own experience)

Some things of G-d are difficult. Personally, the understanding of any of them transcends words and all human language, and so there is no medium to convey them here. That's ok, because all we can do is point in a direction anyway. It is G-d Himself that reveals, and He can do so in an instant, with breathtaking clarity. That requires certain conditions, and He alone determines those. We mortals can probably help one another in that Dep't more than anywhere else, on this broad subject.

God wanted to actually give dominion to man. That has a limited scope and time, but no one took that away from Him. This does indeed mean there would be certain things He would want, that if our species disobeyed Him He would not get.

I should stop there, to see how we're doing. Can you understand this much, and see how it applies?

Yes, I understand. And I don't think you do, based on what you wrote here.

The "dominion" that God gave man is, as you said, limited. God can and does revoke it any time he wants. As soon as it is revoked (which would be after "as long as we live"), he is again the sovereign ruler.

And so we have to distinctive situations here:
1. The dominion of man, where man by his own free will decides that he wants to be saved, and God will honour this decision.... which can result in the option he wants.
2. Man is again subject to the sovereign will of God... and God now chooses. He choses that option that goes against his will to save everyone.

There are better options. Reincarnation for example or some kind of purgatory... there are more. But to deliberaryly exclude every potential way of further salvation does not serve any purpose. To choose the only option that both sideds DON'T want is not reasonable.

That is why Calvinsim is the more logical variant: God deliberatly creates people to NOT save. If you think that is an attack on God's character... maybe you don't understand?

 

[Freodin]

Yes they would. And they make very strong arguments. They also fail to take into account some very significant portions of Scripture, and refuse to deal with them when they are brought up, as those of us not afraid to think critically are wont to do

Perhaps it is you who is afraid to think the most critical thought of all: that "scripture" isn't the infallibe word of God laying out his plans, but the ancient version of CF where fallible humans present their ideas as "God's word".

 

[razeontherock]

1. The dominion of man, where man by his own free will decides that he wants to be saved, and God will honour this decision

This completely misrepresents the Covenant.

 

[razeontherock]

Perhaps it is you who is afraid to think the most critical thought of all: that "scripture" isn't the infallibe word of God laying out his plans, but the ancient version of CF where fallible humans present their ideas as "God's word".

It is more complex yet. Much of Scripture (perhaps the majority) is not positive example at all. Thus the need for "rightly dividing."

 

[Freodin]

This completely misrepresents the Covenant.

Then represent it correctly!

 

[quatona]

Have you EVER come across an athiest that lived, acted, and behaved like a person that follows Christ in his heart, mind and deeds?

With you being an example of the latter group?
No, your behaviour here is pretty, err, unique.

 

[Skavau]

I don't have to be encouraged to say what I intend to say. If you'd asked the question instead of skirting around it, you would have gotten the same answer that you now think you coaxed out of me.

You didn't think to bring it up until I pointed out that the Bible verse you posted smeared us all as liars and even then you didn't directly refer to us as liars until I harangued you about it.

You're lying about saying there is no God.

No I'm not. I genuinely do not believe in a God(s).

as I've said many times before, I'm a big boy. I can deal with reports and the resulting punishment. But that will never allay me in preaching the truth of God's word.

The direct preachments of evil.

If you assign the title of atheist to yourself, then I don't have any reservation at all in telling you that in accordance with God's word, that makes you a liar because HE says you know differently because HE has shown you so.

'God' has not shown me anything.

Apparently not because you seem to be doing everything you can to CHOOSE to spend eternity there.

Except, as I have to keep reminding you: I don't believe that the 'lake of fire' exists and thus am not choosing anything.

And we go right back to you and your world centering around you. It's idolatry in its basest form.

How is reminding you that I don't believe in a God, but recognise that some people attribute literature to a God at all idolatry or the world centering around me. A complete non-sequitor.

the word of God is at odds with everyone who is against it. That's a given.

The existence of people is enough to disprove your doctrine as absurd. You literally have to deny reality to believe it.

Is that a question or are you answering for me? You not accepting Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior will be your CHOICE to spend eternity in the Lake of Fire.

Non-sequitor. Does not follow. Supposing the above to remotely true then this must be asked: If I get drunk to the point where I die then did my decision to drink that night mean that I necessarily chose to die?

You've been given the Gospel of Jesus Christ several times in this thread alone.

I've been given a hateful and disturbing account of the gospel. One that I would never ever bow down to.

Again, you don't believe there is a God so why do you insist on saying you don't believe it's God's truth?

I don't believe there is a God and I don't believe that there is such a thing as 'God's truth'.

Intellectualism has never saved anyone from an eternal lake of fire.

I imagine you do believe that, yes. Hence why you're an anti-intellectual.

The Holy Spirit gives me the confidence to make overarching staements about those who reject Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior.

Then the 'Holy Spirit' is wrong - or what you are hearing is wrong. You are simply wrong about Muslims.

Sure it is. You chose to believe what you just wrote.

No I didn't. I am convinced that I wrote it. I cannot just suspend my belief that I wrote it. That would be denial and I would still secretly believe it. I suggest you understand the nature of belief before going down this futile path.

I preach Jesus Christ crucified and resurrected. The logic discussions can be saved for the intellectuals.

I love how you say that with such sincerity and conviction. You just keep using all the fruits that intellectuals have given you that allow you to sit there at your computer deriding empiricism, rationalism and all knowledge per se in favour of blind faith.

.

Now that's funny.

How so? You are a solipsist.

I revel in God's truth. I do not revel in folks having to spend eternity in the lake of fire.

But you believe those that end up in the 'lake of fire' deserving nothing less. You support it as moral and that is what is disgusting.

Then you feel free to add that as your siggie on all comments from me. Because as I said, if your definition of evil means I get to spend eternity with God, as opposed to your definition of good and not spend eternity with Him, then call me evil.

You are evil.

I claim to KNOW what the ALL-KNOWING says.

You claim to know that there is an 'all-knowing' and since you have denied the understanding and accuracy that knowledge and empiricism has given to us concerning reality you can have no way to examine whether or not you are truly right.

What is breathtaking is how many times folks here God's truth yet still CHOOSE to reject Jesus Christ and thus CHOOSE to spend eternity in the Lake of Fire.

Is it breathtaking that people might choose to resist a tyrant?

 

[Skavau]

You have to take responsibility to "know" God.

But if I don't believe in a God how would I know that I even had a responsibility to 'know' God?

These are absurd standards.

If you believe He does not exist is your faith that needs to be strenthened.... The information is for you to seek it out... Are you going to tell God "sorry I did not know you" and if He says I was always there.... what exactly can we say to him? "oh...I did not have good available information for you?"...

Yes.

What is wrong with that? If I die tomorrow, I would say exactly that. That I was not given enough information to believe that he existed. It would be true and I would be being honest.

The responsibility falls on us to get to know Him.. He is already there He is our Father He is waiting....
I would understand if you did try and you did not "feel" Him; that is something that you might not be able to help... Have you tried to talk to a priest about this? *just asking as it worked for me ...I was an agnostic in my teenage years...*

My position is based in rationalism and empiricism. I will also add that I have never been religious and my activity in this thread is based on moral opposition to the idea that atheists (or anyone, really) is somehow deserving of being tortured for eternity. I don't approve of thought-crime now, and I don't approve of it in a hypothetical afterlife not even mentioning torture.

 

[Frumious]

@Skavau - Where (or How) do you draw the line in the sand between good and evil?
Is there a way to determine an empirically universal line that defines good vs evil?