On atheists and Hell...

[Tinker Grey]

*snip*

You DON'T have a free will. Humanity cannot make a conscious decision to do what God wants. We are NATURALLY God's enemies, and slaves to sin. We cannot help but sin.

*snip*

Hell is separation from God. Frankly, it is what unbelievers WANT. They were given an opportunity to come to a knowledge of the Truth (whether by natural knowledge, and that is another topic all together, or by gospel message.) and rejected it. They wanted to remain in sin and not be with God eternally. God doesn't FORCE anyone to be with Him or to love Him. If they WANT to spend eternity apart from Him, He will let them go to Hell. But this was not something that He wanted or desires.

If I want hell, God made me want it. I don't have free will, remember? If I rejected it, he manipulated my neurons (or created the initial conditions) such that I would reject it.

However, you look at it. If there is no free will, God made me to burn me.

 

[Washington]

You DON'T have a free will.

And I agree. I was merely going along with the scenario where free will is a fact. In truth, all thoughts and actions are determined.

 

[BreadAlone]

If I want hell, God made me want it. I don't have free will, remember? If I rejected it, he manipulated my neurons (or created the initial conditions) such that I would reject it.

However, you look at it. If there is no free will, God made me to burn me.

You don't have a free will because you are a slave to sin, not because you're a robot. Your neurons don't determine your spiritual decisions and conclusions. That falls in the realm of your spirit, not the physical. You reject God because you want to, not because God wants you to.

 

[CreedIsChrist]

I would be very happy to forfeit my free will in order not to go to Hell. Sign me up.

Its already been done and you don't have to give up your free will in order to get it. You may need to give up some of lifes luxuries, but as Christ said finding the kingdom of heaven is like selling and giving up everything you own in order to buy that one perfect pearl.


"Come to me, all of you who are weary and loaded down with burdens, and I will give you rest. Place my yoke on you and learn from me, because I am gentle and humble, and you will find rest for your souls,because my yoke is pleasant, and my burden is light." - Matthew 11:29http://bible.cc/matthew/11-30.htm

 

[CreedIsChrist]

If I want hell, God made me want it. I don't have free will, remember? If I rejected it, he manipulated my neurons (or created the initial conditions) such that I would reject it.

However, you look at it. If there is no free will, God made me to burn me.

No you rejected it because of the Pride of your soul. Just like Satan who turned away from God because of Pride and wanted to be like God.

At any one chance you could open your heart to God right now if you wanted. But it is your own arrogance and pride that sets you back.

 

[Freodin]

Now I read through (most of ) this thread and have been presented with various concepts of God as he deals with my unbelief.

But I have a single question left: which of these various God concepts is the one that I have to consciously reject in order to go to Hell?

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Because He doesn't decide, you do. But if He did kill you now, you wouldn't be able to decide. Because you'd be dead.

So, you believe that God doesn't know what decision a specific person will make, and just has to make sure? Or that each and every person eventually makes the right decision, with God knowing that?

God isn't stupid.

Exactly. He ought to know better than to subject people to eternal torment for being incredulous with regards to a specific set of Bronze Age/Iron Age myths.

As far as those who don't get to hear about Christ, I'm pretty sure there is mercy on them. The Bible never mentions it unfortunately. But hell isn't for people who don't accept Christ and more for people who deny Him entirely. Those who know but choose not to accept it. Not people who were never taught.

Under those auspices, it would be better not to witness and do missionary work at all, lest you doom unsuspecting Non-Christians to eternal torment.

 

[cantata]

Here's my problem. Salvation seems to be predicated on a very peculiar criterion: holding certain beliefs (and, despite what anyone might say, then performing certain acts, such as repentance, accordingly). Yet we do not choose our beliefs. Therefore the criterion seems to be arbitrary, and therefore the system for choosing who will be saved and who will not be saved is a most peculiar one.

I have always felt that sincerity would be a much better criterion.

 

[BreadAlone]

Here's my problem. Salvation seems to be predicated on a very peculiar criterion: holding certain beliefs (and, despite what anyone might say, then performing certain acts, such as repentance, accordingly). Yet we do not choose our beliefs. Therefore the criterion seems to be arbitrary, and therefore the system for choosing who will be saved and who will not be saved is a most peculiar one.

I have always felt that sincerity would be a much better criterion.

Salvation is available to everyone. God offers faith freely through the Holy Spirit. Those who don't enter Paradise do not do so because they CHOSE not to. The only way NOT to get into heaven is to reject God's plan of Salvation.

The only way into heaven is to live a perfect life, and since we can't, God did for us, and now he offers His perfection to us free of charge. We can't get it ourselves, but we certainly can reject it. And God doesn't force his gift on us, so He'll respect the wishes of those who don't want to be with Him for eternity, and will let them go to hell..

 

[cantata]

Salvation is available to everyone. God offers faith freely through the Holy Spirit. Those who don't enter Paradise do not do so because they CHOSE not to. The only way NOT to get into heaven is to reject God's plan of Salvation.

This is a very convenient way for those who believe to condemn those who don't.

However, it's clear that not everyone gets the same shot at salvation. If you're born into a Christian family in a predominantly Christian nation, your chances of dying a Christian are much higher than for those in other circumstances.

The only way into heaven is to live a perfect life, and since we can't, God did for us, and now he offers His perfection to us free of charge. We can't get it ourselves, but we certainly can reject it. And God doesn't force his gift on us, so He'll respect the wishes of those who don't want to be with Him for eternity, and will let them go to hell..

How can one reject salvation if one doesn't believe in God in the first place?

 

[BreadAlone]

This is a very convenient way for those who believe to condemn those who don't.

However, it's clear that not everyone gets the same shot at salvation. If you're born into a Christian family in a predominantly Christian nation, your chances of dying a Christian are much higher than for those in other circumstances.





How can one reject salvation if one doesn't believe in God in the first place?

It is true that belief is largely based upon where one lives. That is undeniable fact. The knowledge of God, however, is imprinted on the heart of every human being. The rejection of this knowledge is equatable the the rejection of the gospel itself. There are innumerable documented cases of people in Muslim and Hindu (to name just two) dominated cultures being lead to the Church through no appearent external sources. And this, in many nations, under penalty of death should these individuals be caught. I believe that covers both of your points.

 

[cantata]

It is true that belief is largely based upon where one lives. That is undeniable fact. The knowledge of God, however, is imprinted on the heart of every human being. The rejection of this knowledge is equatable the the rejection of the gospel itself. There are innumerable documented cases of people in Muslim and Hindu (to name just two) dominated cultures being lead to the Church through no appearent external sources. And this, in many nations, under penalty of death should these individuals be caught. I believe that covers both of your points.

As I said - it's very convenient.

 

[paug]

The knowledge of God, however, is imprinted on the heart of every human being. The rejection of this knowledge is equatable the the rejection of the gospel itself. There are innumerable documented cases of people in Muslim and Hindu (to name just two) dominated cultures being lead to the Church through no appearent external sources.

I don't understand where this "imprinted on the heart of every human being" -argument comes from. I hear it alot, in different forms; "everyone knows there is a God, but e.g. atheists just actively suppress that knowledge for reason x." Why should the knowledge of God be imprinted on everyone's heart? Why not the knowledge of the Muslim God? The corresponding statement of a Muslim will have just as much truth-value as yours.

The point is, when people make that argument to other people who know that it's false (like myself), it just makes a fool of the person stating that. It might look good in print, and it might satisfy the person saying it, but it just makes a fool of him.

Is there some kind of index for these "unnumerable documented cases in Muslim-dominated cultures" moving on to Christianity? I daresay the flux is reciprocated in the other direction as well.

 

[Oneofthediaspora]

To be patient would require me to be waiting for something. From the point of view of an unbeliever, there is little point in waiting around for a non-existent God to show up.

However, thank you; I appreciate your approach and your politeness, and your refreshing abstention from proclaiming my eternal damnation.



I hope it's more about the former, myself. If there really are absolute moral values, then simply knowing about them and understanding them will allow one to cleanse oneself.

Firstly, if you meet a Christian and he/she tells you that he/she knows you are damned; then you are in the prescence of a presumptuous, proud fool and you would do well to end the conversation so as not to allow further pollution of you mind.
Maybe offering up a prayer for them to the God who just might exist would not be a bad idea either.

Secondly, you say you are a disbeliever. I believe you too
But you are clever enough to know that saying "I don't believe in X" can be a radically different sentence depending on what X equals.
If you are saying that you know beyond all doubt that God does not exist then, we'll say no more about it. If you say you are waiting for more evidence or experience; then I say "Be patient."

Now the last two sentences of your post ... Brilliant. There are two possible reasons why we differ though. Either you are a much more morally strong person than I am and so would always wish to comform your will to what is "right"; or it's because you are younger than I am and so you haven't felt the addictive and habitual nature of sin as strongly.
I'm happy to go with the former.

You are saying basically that once you could see that something is absolutley unquestionably the correct moral way, you would conform your will to act in accordance with it.
I salute you.

Our friend Washington seems to think this is the negation of free will. I don't get that at all. If someone decides to act in a certain way because it is God's will, this is exactly the same as saying they wish to act in such a way because it is absolutely right. It is the choosing to act in a particular way that is the act of will.
Sooner or later supernatural help will be needed to keep it up, but it still requires us to make the choice in the first place.

 

[Oneofthediaspora]

I assume this is after I die, and am, what, sitting in purgatory where to my right I can see the golden steps ascending to heaven and to my left the fires of hell? Gee, can I have a minute here please. This is a toughy.

Whoa! there a minute. Exactly what is this desire of god that I have a free will "to be what He wants [me] to be"? What kind of free will is that? Evidently you think that free will involves acceding to god's desires. Sorry, but that's not a definition of free will I've ever seen.

I wouldn't get too hung up on the anthropomorphic imagery if I were you. Hell is just simply existing outside of the prescence of God (or for my Baptist friend) as far from God spiritually as it is possible to be. If the depictions of what such a state must feel like are pretty horrible then it's worth bearing in mind that the descriptions (including the Dominical descriptions) were made by those who could think of nothing more horrible than being far from God.
There are and will be those who choose not to be in His prescence.

As for the second part of the quote. See Cantata's post above first.
There are many who feel that there is no absolute good and no absolute truth. For the sake of our thought experiment, however, I was asking you to imagine that there were such things.
If there were and you were able to recognise them as such you would be faced with a choice, an act of free will.
If you wanted to act in accordance with the absolute good and absolute truth, it would require becoming something different from what you are now. You would have to sacrifice an awful lot of your "self" to achieve your goal. (You would also, as has been pointed out already, very soon realise that you were going to need some help to do it because it would be impossible to do it alone).

Would such a state of affairs fall into any definition of "free will" that you have heard. If not, could you give some sort of definition of what the concept means to you please?

 

[cantata]

Firstly, if you meet a Christian and he/she tells you that he/she knows you are damned; then you are in the prescence of a presumptuous, proud fool and you would do well to end the conversation so as not to allow further pollution of you mind.
Maybe offering up a prayer for them to the God who just might exist would not be a bad idea either.

The problem is that if I'm going to go down the route of praying to possible gods, I'm going to have to offer up prayers to an awful lot of them, including - oh noes! - vindictive ones who will do the exact opposite of that for which I ask...

Secondly, you say you are a disbeliever. I believe you too
But you are clever enough to know that saying "I don't believe in X" can be a radically different sentence depending on what X equals.
If you are saying that you know beyond all doubt that God does not exist then, we'll say no more about it. If you say you are waiting for more evidence or experience; then I say "Be patient."

I don't believe in gods.

If convincing evidence comes to light, I will change my views accordingly.

But equally, if convincing evidence comes to light that there are leprechauns, I will do the same.

I am "being patient" about both, I suppose.

Now the last two sentences of your post ... Brilliant.

Thank you!

There are two possible reasons why we differ though. Either you are a much more morally strong person than I am and so would always wish to comform your will to what is "right"; or it's because you are younger than I am and so you haven't felt the addictive and habitual nature of sin as strongly.
I'm happy to go with the former.

You are saying basically that once you could see that something is absolutley unquestionably the correct moral way, you would conform your will to act in accordance with it.
I salute you.

Well, it's not so virtuous as that.

It's just that I hold certain philosophical beliefs about moral absolutes. It's a bit complicated, but basically the only way I can conceive of an objective moral quality of an action is by supposing that the action has an objective quality of to-be-done-ness or not-to-be-done-ness, which is what our "moral radar" (conscience, perhaps) picks up on when we perceive or consider the act.

If I perceived these qualities perfectly, the sense that any act is to-be-done or not-to-be-done would be presumably so emotionally intense that to violate those moral qualities would be intolerable.

Our friend Washington seems to think this is the negation of free will. I don't get that at all. If someone decides to act in a certain way because it is God's will, this is exactly the same as saying they wish to act in such a way because it is absolutely right. It is the choosing to act in a particular way that is the act of will.
Sooner or later supernatural help will be needed to keep it up, but it still requires us to make the choice in the first place.

If you believe in free will at all, I agree that there would be no violation of that free will in the case you describe.

 

[Oneofthediaspora]

The problem is that if I'm going to go down the route of praying to possible gods, I'm going to have to offer up prayers to an awful lot of them, including - oh noes! - vindictive ones who will do the exact opposite of that for which I ask..

But why would you?
I honestly don't get that.
If there is a God (and I know you don't think there is) then surely anything but an eternal, non-contingent, absolute is a philosphical non-starter.
There may be other *created* entities that are supernatural but why would you feel the need to go to these when you can go to the source directly.
Fair enough the source is a little more ineffable (can there be degress of ineffability ???) but it would be the place to go.

Plato was onto this and he lived in a polytheistic culture.
Abraham was onto this and he was surrounded by cultures that were lost in the filth and degradation of demon worship.
Most interestingly Akhenaten (sp) was onto it centuries before either of the other two.

 

[cantata]

But why would you?
I honestly don't get that.
If there is a God (and I know you don't think there is) then surely anything but an eternal, non-contingent, absolute is a philosphical non-starter.

Yes. But an eternal, non-contingent, absolute being need not be a benevolent being. She may be a contrary or even a cruel being.

There may be other *created* entities that are supernatural but why would you feel the need to go to these when you can go to the source directly.
Fair enough the source is a little more ineffable (can there be degress of ineffability ???) but it would be the place to go.

Maybe the source wants me to go via other beings. Maybe she's offended by being directly addressed. That's the problem with ineffability!

Plato was onto this and he lived in a polytheistic culture.
Abraham was onto this and he was surrounded by cultures that were lost in the filth and degradation of demon worship.
Most interestingly Akhenaten (sp) was onto it centuries before either of the other two.

Sure, but again, I don't see any reason to suppose that God is good, if indeed there is any such thing as good anyway. (The existence of God alone would not convince me that there exist absolute moral values, which I find philosophically problematic in and of themselves.)

 

[Oneofthediaspora]

Sure, but again, I don't see any reason to suppose that God is good, if indeed there is any such thing as good anyway. (The existence of God alone would not convince me that there exist absolute moral values, which I find philosophically problematic in and of themselves.)

Granted, but against that you have the much misunderstood argument *from* morality (recently misunderstood spectacularly or wilfully by Prof. Dawkins).
I find this personally the very best philosophical argument for God's existence; or more accurately, the best argument against materialism/naturalism.
None of it comes close to personal experience though

There is also that strange series of events that took place in Palestine 2000 years that people are still banging on about to this day.
But that is so tied up with personal experience that it only really comes clear when you give in to Him (which is rather convenient, I know

 

[cantata]

Granted, but against that you have the much misunderstood argument *from* morality (recently misunderstood spectacularly or wilfully by Prof. Dawkins).
I find this personally the very best philosophical argument for God's existence; or more accurately, the best argument against materialism/naturalism.
None of it comes close to personal experience though

I would love it if you could frame the moral argument in your own words, as I wouldn't wish to make assumptions about your position.

There is also that strange series of events that took place in Palestine 2000 years that people are still banging on about to this day.
But that is so tied up with personal experience that it only really comes clear when you give in to Him (which is rather convenient, I know

Indeed, highly convenient!

There have been supposedly miraculous events going on in the world since the beginning of human history. From the point of view of the unbeliever, each has an equal claim on us. And of course, as you say, until one is convinced, the significance of one particular miraculous event is not at all obvious.