A Good God would not send a decent Atheist to hell.

[marketandchurch]

This was the post that got me banned on Christian Chat:

Then God doesn't care about the goodness and decency of an atheist, a buddhist, etc. And if that is the message you are telling me, then there is no point to being a good person. There is no point of fighting on behalf of the oppressed, as America did, in WWII. The only purpose of fighting the Japanese, and beating back the Nazi's should have been so that we could bring more people to christ...is that what your saying? Should America be sending food and aid to heathens in Haiti? Should America be helping out muslims in disaster relief fallowing a natural disaster, unless it is to bring them to Christ? Is a person's only value to you, there potential to become a convert? They have no humanity beyond that?

You have an old testament my_adonai, and you are to be as obsessed with its obsessions, as you are with the new testament's. And the Old Testament's preoccupation is fighting evil, championing the good, and making a more ethical existence, during this lifetime.

And unless you think Christians alone can make this lifetime a little better, a little less genocidal, with a little less starvation, a little less torture, etc, it is an unethical message to peddle, that a good God would demand goodness, unless one doesn't believe in his son. Then one's goodness is pointless. One might as well not care about not gossiping behind other people's back, destroying someone's dignity in public, sleeping with a coworker's wife, extorting an elderly couple that one was hired to help, raping a pre-pubcescent child, killing another human being because of their skin color, etc, etc, etc.

Apparently, I was challenging people's faith, and was just there to be anti-christian, in saying that a Good God would not send to hell decent people, simply because they do not believe in his Son. I got all sorts of less then appetizing replies, saying I'm screwed for eternity, if I don't accept Jesus. I feel that I am not alone, even within the Christian community, in thinking this as I've heard many catholic priests, and mainstream protestant pastors, while I was growing up, distancing themselves from such a belief. I don't know where people on this forum stand, but I'll put it up for debate:

• Topic of Debate: A Good God would not send to hell a decent person, simply for not believing in his son.

If you agree with me, and are a Christian, please square your response with the rest of the New Testament. What I'm looking for is scriptural consistency to back up your position, and more importantly, how one will then re-read the entire message of the New Testament, if one wants to hold that position. I say this because I don't want you to drop scripture, simply because it doesn't conform to your own personal beliefs, but I am looking for how one can reinterpret the New testament, if one drops that central tenant, & for the rest of us, impediment, to everlasting life. Is there room for this? Or is the New Testament rigidly in the affirmative about Christ being the only way to heaven? Which is fine. That's their theology, but let's see where this goes.

[Choir Loft]

[Replying to Choir Loft]

HOGWASH, you are judging me because I rebuked this biggot for attacking Paul.

Most Hebrews on the same level as most carnal religious believers and no nothing about the realm of the spirit.

Do you really think Hebrews have the Holy Spirit to lead and guide them to all truth???

So explain to me how a Hebrew is spiritual??

You are attempting to draw me into the same sin as you yourself wallow in, a tactic employed often by the devil.

I am not by this accusing you of being in league with the evil one. Such allegiance would require conscious effort and you appear to be only operating under deception. In other words, you believe a lie.

One does not have to plumb the depths of a man's heart when he wears his allegiance on his sleeve and his accusations on his tongue (or his keyboard as the case may be).

I cannot judge a man's spirituality. Neither can you.

Spirituality is a matter between a man and God. Therefore you cannot judge a Jew's spirituality (or anybody else's). Only God can do that.

and that's just me, hollering from the choir loft...

[Benoni]

[Replying to Choir Loft]

HOGWASH, you are judging me because I rebuked this biggot for attacking Paul.

Most Hebrews on the same level as most carnal religious believers and no nothing about the realm of the spirit.

Do you really think Hebrews have the Holy Spirit to lead and guide them to all truth???

So explain to me how a Hebrew is spiritual??

You are attempting to draw me into the same sin as you yourself wallow in, a tactic employed often by the devil.

I am not by this accusing you of being in league with the evil one. Such allegiance would require conscious effort and you appear to be only operating under deception. In other words, you believe a lie.

One does not have to plumb the depths of a man's heart when he wears his allegiance on his sleeve and his accusations on his tongue (or his keyboard as the case may be).

I cannot judge a man's spirituality. Neither can you.

Spirituality is a matter between a man and God. Therefore you cannot judge a Jew's spirituality (or anybody else's). Only God can do that.

and that's just me, hollering from the choir loft...

DEVIL?

Is not the devil the accuser? Is that what you are assusing me of tactic like the devil???

BIG DIFFERENCE

So you believe a Hebrew who rejects Christ has the Holy Spirit?????
How is a hebrew spiritual?

Pretty hard not to judge someone spiritually who rejects the Spirit of truth????

[Choir Loft]

Choir Loft

Your second paragraph reveals you to be a Universalist - a philosophy recognized as heresy, illogical and in opposition to every major religious philosophy on the planet. The major disagreement is that Universalists believe that everybody can be saved (a fact which can be disputed by mere observation of the species).

Most religions (and all 3 of the major ones) have established a behavioral and spiritual scale of behavior upon which all men are to be judged. It's called morality. Those who pass the test get good grades and ultimately dwell in eternal paradise. Those who fail the test are assigned to a rather unpleasant destiny forever.

And you accuse me bigotry?

You are a bigot when it comes to the Universal faith.

You call it Hersey?

Interesting?

I noticed you love to see yourself write but you do not like to quote chapter and verse to back your claim the Universalism is heresy?

On the other hand I believe those who believe Jesus is going to damn trillions of people to eternal torture are heretics and are false prophets and false teachers among. Notice I have chapter and verse to back up my claim not bigotry.

2 Peter 2
1But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.

I didn't quote chapter and verse proving Universalism is heresy because Christian Universalism got its start in the 17th century rather than the 1st. There was no such thing as Christian universalism in the time of the early church despite the claims by George T. Knight who said it did. His own claim, by the way, was not accompanied by either verifiable scientific evidence, legitimate historic testimony or Biblical text. The man was a liar as well as a heretic. Perhaps a little mad as well. His would not be the first case of a man persuaded by satan to believe a lie in opposition to the gospel.

There is no Biblical evidence whatsoever to support the contention of universal reconciliation. The gospel states categorically that salvation is exclusive, not inclusive. Truth by its nature is exclusive and Jesus said that He was the truth.

On the other hand, satan's deception of Genesis chapter 3 continues especially in the Universalist creed. Satan stated that God was a liar and that if Adam and Eve took it upon themselves to decide what was good and what was evil they would become gods unto themselves. In doing so they voluntarily gave their authority to the devil (in the same way you gave your authority of judgment of Jews to me). As a result, God's promise of punishment was exacted and the human pair lost both their fantasy of godhood as well as their humanity. Six thousand years later, man still thinks he's a god unto himself while at the same time he searches in futility for the purpose of life he yielded to the devil.

Universalism states categorically that God is a liar. It does so by making inconsistent assumptions of the context of scripture and by justifying sin with nothing more than an empty argument. Sin is serious and can only be dealt with by the blood of the lamb applied to the man who accepts Christ's sacrifice for him.

Every other man condemns himself. Jesus condemns no one. Each man judges himself unworthy of Jesus' salvation when he refuses to yield to it. Jesus said that the majority of men would do that because they love the darkness rather than His light.

But justifying yourself, even to the point of accusing Jesus Christ of sin, will not save you. It was exactly that attitude that created the atmosphere within which Christ was crucified. Those who accuse Christ of sin today are crucifying them in their hearts and these same men will reap a sinner's reward for doing so.

Repent and be saved while there is yet time.

and that's me, hollering from the choir loft...

[Benoni]

I see [Replying to post 848 by Choir Loft]

I give chapter and verse and you give me your opionin?



Not true. Church history shows that the concept of universalism was taught in most of the major theology schools in the very beginning of the early Church...

From Wikipedia...

"In Christianity, Universalism refers to the belief that all humans will be saved through Jesus Christ and eventually come to a harmony in God's kingdom. A related doctrine, apokatastasis, is the belief that all mortal beings will be reconciled to God, including Satan and his fallen angels (not all CU agree to this). Universalism was a fairly commonly held view among theologians in early Christianity: In the first five or six centuries of Christianity there were six known theological schools, of which four (Alexandria, Antioch, Cesarea, and Edessa or Nisibis) were Universalist, one (Ephesus) accepted conditional immortality, and one (Carthage or Rome) taught the endless punishment of the lost.[1]. The two major theologians opposing it were Tertullian and Augustine.[citation needed] In later centuries, Universalism has become very much a minority position in the major branches of Christianity, though it has a long history of prominent adherents."
• John the Apostle (John 4:42)
• The Didascalia (the Catechetical school of Alexandria)
• Pantaenus, first head of catechetical school at Alexandria
• Clement of Alexandria, second head of catechetical school at Alexandria
• Origen, greatest scholar of the early church
• Athenasius, Archbishop of Alexandria
• Didymus
• Ambrose, Bishop
• Ephraim
• Chrysostum
• Gregory of Nyssa, Bishop
• Gregory of Nazianzus, Bishop and President of the second Church council
• Titus, Bishop of Bostra
These are a sample of the Christian Church in the first three hundred years.

Here is a list of well known people since the beginning. Included are three of your Presidents who if they were not full UC were supportive of it... Abraham Lincoln, Benjamin Franklin, and George Washington. Other names, like the Bronte sisters, William Wallace (Braveheart), Robert and Elizabeth Browning, and a modern theologian and translator, William Barclay..

[Benoni]

by the way I did not accuse you of being

a false teacher
a false prophets
or a heretic

2 Peter 2
1But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.

[Benoni]

Choir Loft

There is no Biblical evidence whatsoever to support the contention of universal reconciliation. The gospel states categorically that salvation is exclusive, not inclusive. Truth by its nature is exclusive and Jesus said that He was the truth.

I see you keep rambling on and ignoring the verses I quoted that all will be saved? You have not refuted one verse I quoted?

On the other hand, Satan’s deception of Genesis chapter 3 continues especially in the Universalist creed. Satan stated that God was a liar and that if Adam and Eve took it upon themselves to decide what was good and what was evil they would become gods unto themselves. In doing so they voluntarily gave their authority to the devil (in the same way you gave your authority of judgment of Jews to me). As a result, God's promise of punishment was exacted and the human pair lost both their fantasy of godhood as well as their humanity. Six thousand years later, man still thinks he's a god unto himself while at the same time he searches in futility for the purpose of life he yielded to the devil.

What are you rambling on about here, this has nothing to do with what a Universalist believes and you are way off subject???

Universalism states categorically that God is a liar. It does so by making inconsistent assumptions of the context of scripture and by justifying sin with nothing more than an empty argument. Sin is serious and can only be dealt with by the blood of the lamb applied to the man who accepts Christ's sacrifice for him.

More HOGWASH nowhere does Universalism states categorically that God is a liar????

Every other man condemns himself. Jesus condemns no one. Each man judges himself unworthy of Jesus' salvation when he refuses to yield to it. Jesus said that the majority of men would do that because they love the darkness rather than His light.

Really so why did Jesus die for our sins? Of course carnal man loves darkness that is how God created him in a world of sin and death? Did carnal man choose this carnal world; no God caused man to error

But justifying yourself, even to the point of accusing Jesus Christ of sin, will not save you. It was exactly that attitude that created the atmosphere within which Christ was crucified. Those who accuse Christ of sin today are crucifying them in their hearts and these same men will reap a sinner's reward for doing so.

More HOGWASH, where did you dig this up???

Repent and be saved while there is yet time.

I have been a Christian for fifty years and you tell me to repent??

[Benoni]

Back to Adam and Eve, please lets debate instead of pointing fingers at something you have no clue of what you are writting about.

Adam was already immortal for he walked and talked with God in the garden, he was created in God’s image and likeness on the sixth day. He faced God face to face this is a far cry from where mortal carnal man cannot look upon God’s glory as demonstrated with Moses who had to put a veil over his face when he returned from the mountain of God and the Children of Israel could not look at God’s glory. In fact Adam saw more of God then Moses who also was mortal who only say God’s backside in a cliff of a rock which is symbolic of Jesus the Christ.

[micatala]

HOGWASH, you are judging me because I rebuked this biggot for attacking Paul.

You are attempting to draw me into the same sin as you yourself wallow in, a tactic employed often by the devil.

I am not by this accusing you of being in league with the evil one. Such allegiance would require conscious effort and you appear to be only operating under deception. In other words, you believe a lie.

Moderator Comment

Comment to Benoni and Choir Loft.

Please avoid the personal commentary, accusations of bigotry and sinfulness, etc.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Jack Stoddart]

So I would normally be called a strong atheist. According to the teachings of any church I've ever been in across the anglophone world and according to the Bible available in English, YES. God will send me to hell regardless of whether I'm a goody-two-shoes or the most deranged psychopath ever to wipe out a city for no reason, women and babies included and then gloat over it.

And also regardless of whether the words translated as [font=Georgia]HELL[/font] in fact signify that concept at all. That is what the Church taught for centuries and in most cases still teaches.

Concerning what Jesus' or Paul's view could have been if they had ever existed it would first be necessary to establish that they did actually exist before moving on to what they wrote or said. Since that has not been established, and since I am not claiming that either of them did exist, what we have left is what the Churches teach. Sure, a few do not teach that. A theological discussion does not seem to me to address the question of what the proposed divinity would do with atheists. We are not limited to Christian dogma. Islam also has a hell. Allah would send me there too (subject to the same proviso as applies to all god claims).

But to throw up an unreferenced internal precedent: any god who'd command little children to be murdered—and saying "oh, but if you're some species of infidel (such as I am) that's not murder because you're an infidel" won't cut any mustard due to the context of the Original Post—would certainly have no qualms about frying atheists good, bad or dissociatively psychotic.

I live in the anglophone world. Curches contain English bibles. And that is what their clerics, for the most part, do teach.

[Benoni]

So I would normally be called a strong atheist. According to the teachings of any church I've ever been in across the anglophone world and according to the Bible available in English, YES. God will send me to hell regardless of whether I'm a goody-two-shoes or the most deranged psychopath ever to wipe out a city for no reason, women and babies included and then gloat over it.

And also regardless of whether the words translated as [font=Georgia]HELL[/font] in fact signify that concept at all. That is what the Church taught for centuries and in most cases still teaches.

Concerning what Jesus' or Paul's view could have been if they had ever existed it would first be necessary to establish that they did actually exist before moving on to what they wrote or said. Since that has not been established, and since I am not claiming that either of them did exist, what we have left is what the Churches teach. Sure, a few do not teach that. A theological discussion does not seem to me to address the question of what the proposed divinity would do with atheists. We are not limited to Christian dogma. Islam also has a hell. Allah would send me there too (subject to the same proviso as applies to all god claims).

But to throw up an unreferenced internal precedent: any god who'd command little children to be murdered—and saying "oh, but if you're some species of infidel (such as I am) that's not murder because you're an infidel" won't cut any mustard due to the context of the Original Post—would certainly have no qualms about frying atheists good, bad or dissociatively psychotic.

I live in the anglophone world. Curches contain English bibles. And that is what their clerics, for the most part, do teach .

If you notice I am a christian Universalist and do not believe in eternal hell, and I love proving Christians who believe in this lie it is a lie. But most of them are a refuse to debate me