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.

[Jack Stoddart]

I think there's room for expanding the topic to encompass "What Constitutes a Good God?" and remain within marketandchurch's original intention since Christians do claim their version of God to be good.

I guess the harmony you would rather settle for is a world full of death, sin, murder, rape and genocide with no purpose; then a world where these terrible things are part of a grand plan

As I mentioned I am an artist. I see God as a creator and am creating a perfect creation. To create something an artist does not start with a perfect piece of art; that happens when it is completed

[center]So we start with chaos, in the case of the universe:[/center]

• Genesis 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. [AV]

An artist/creator takes whatever it takes to create something out of nothing and God’s creation starts with the entire negative to build something very awesome and amazing.

• Genesis 1:3a And God said, Let there be light: [AV]

God is represented as prevailing over chaos, bringing order and establishing a world suited for humans. That is the whole point of a garden (paradise is simply an ancient word for garden; the modern concept of a "paradise" is just that: modern).

In Job we are presented with words attributed to God himself, announcing to Job exactly such a triumph of creative endeavour:

• Job 38:1-11 Then the LORD answered Job out of the whirlwind, and said, Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge? Gird up now thy loins like a man; for I will demand of thee, and answer thou me. Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding. Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it? Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof; When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy? Or who shut up the sea with doors, when it brake forth, as if it had issued out of the womb? When I made the cloud the garment thereof, and thick darkness a swaddlingband for it, And brake up for it my decreed place, and set bars and doors, And said, Hitherto shalt thou come, but no further: and here shall thy proud waves be stayed? [AV]

The Garden of Eden a place of Paradise was the start point; where we began.

[center][font=Georgia]THE DOUBLE STANDARD[/font][/center]

An artist/creator takes whatever it takes to create something out of nothing and God’s creation starts with the entire negative to build something very awesome and amazing.

The starting point cannot be simultaneously chaos (the entire negative) and order (paradise). And it is worth noting that those standards are from the human perspective. Not all species thrive in the order we call a garden. Indeed to create a garden many species need to be eradicated. The garden of Eden is there for Adam. Another way of saying that would be that paradise is created for humanity. Are you suggesting that God is constrained by the natural order, that to originate his paradise species must emerge by natural selection with parasites, toxic flora and diseases all in the plan? Yet for a Jesus the natural order can be overturned?

[right]To say that Atropa belladonna or Strychnos toxifera are
poorly suited to the children's play area, but have their
place in jungles is to judge things by human standards.[/right]
[center] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
S. toxifera: "to poison arrows" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . used by Mrs Claudius Caesar: A. belladonna[/center]


It is where this God enacts his cloistered charade that suffering is maximised, according to the source material. No self respecting Chinese warlord would flounce around in such a genocide orgy as is portrayed throughout the Hexateuch. Sure, he might expand his territory a bit, invade, win or lose, then stop. He has his victory. Or again compare the English nobility. Warwick did blast Kenilworth during the 17th century but once the parliamentarians had prevailed there was no indiscriminate slaughter of children, babies, women, no captivity of virgins for raping later, no wanton destruction. That is the human standard. Conflict, resolution, accommodation.

I see God as sovereign over all things to include death, suffering and all the negative things we humans have to put up with.

These negative things are showcased as a result of "The Fall" in any Christian theology I've ever encountered. To claim that they are a part of God's (as yet uncompleted) creative endeavour is to invoke the double standard. God really wanted Eve to eat that fruit so that death and suffering would come? The necessary next step for a creator now constrained by his creation? Either he is omnipotent or not.

And killing. Murder is wrong? Until the lawgiver requires unprecedented cruelty as part of his plan whereupon genocide and rape are blessings?

In the end of God’s creation He will create something far greater than what happened in Eden

But this is not greater. It is far, far less. And it is claimed to result from Sin, disobedience, departure from God's plan. A departure resulting in either hell or annihilation for the majority of souls. It cannot therefore be part of the plan and cannot be good. Hell is not goodness yet it is the destination described by the Church throughout the centuries. The plan you've described cannot be good.

[myth-one.com]

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

I think the post quoted there does challenge people's beliefs, that they should be challenged and that the OP was correct to do so.

Even more than being challenged, Churches and religious organizations should be held accountable for any damages resulting from their teachings.

[center]============================================================================================[/center]

I think there's room for expanding the topic to encompass "What Constitutes a Good God?" and remain within marketandchurch's original intention since Christians do claim their version of God to be good.

As I mentioned I am an artist. I see God as a creator and am creating a perfect creation. To create something an artist does not start with a perfect piece of art; that happens when it is completed

[center]So we start with chaos, in the case of the universe:[/center]

• Genesis 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. [AV]

An artist/creator takes whatever it takes to create something out of nothing and God’s creation starts with the entire negative to build something very awesome and amazing.

I would say that the original creation is defined in the first verse of the Bible:

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

There is no reason to believe God ever made anything that was not originally created as good.

I think we started with good -- not chaos.

But why does verse two then state that the earth was without form, void, and dark after being created in verse one?

Other translations of the original Hebrew text indicate that something occurred and the earth had reached this state. For example, the New International Version® of the Bible renders the same verses as follows:

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and empty; darkness was over the surface of the deep... (Genesis 1:1-2)

That is, God originally created the heavens and the earth good in verse one, and over a period of time the earth had become formless, void, and dark. Between verse one and verse two a period of time obviously occurred.

The following "creation" described beginning with verse three is actually a recreation of a decimated earth originally created as "good" in verse one. This idea that the creation described in detail in Genesis is actually a recreation of a decimated earth is supported by other scripture verses:

Thou sendest forth thy spirit (see Genesis 1:2 -- "And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters"), they (mankind) are created: and thou (God) renewest the face of the earth (beginning in Genesis 1:3).

I believe the earth reached the conditions described in verse two as a result of the rebellion against God by Satan and other angels under his control. Their sin and rebellion produced the chaotic conditions of the earth described in verse two.

In verse three of chapter one, roughly 4.55 billion years from verse one, God performs the most obvious and logical first step in the recreation of the earth. He turns the lights back on:

And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. (Genesis 1:3)

[center]=====================================================================================[/center]

But this is not greater. It is far, far less. And it is claimed to result from Sin, disobedience, departure from God's plan. A departure resulting in either hell or annihilation for the majority of souls. It cannot therefore be part of the plan and cannot be good. Hell is not goodness yet it is the destination described by the Church throughout the centuries. The plan you've described cannot be good.

May I make the case that it is a better system than the original creation. Bear with me for a few more minutes.

In the original creation, God left a host of angels under Satan's leadership to maintain the earth. One requirement needed to perform their duties was freedom of choice. Whatever occurred, they needed to be able to consider all possibilities and chose the correct action to maintain the earth in good condition.

Another requirement was longevity. God's creations last forever.

But then Satan rebelled:

How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning!... For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God... I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High. (Isaiah 14:12-14)

Satan's punishment will be life in the lake of fire without the possibility of parole. But life in the case of Satan is ETERNITY!

And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever. (Revelation 20:10)

A trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, . . . years from now Satan's will still have an infinite number of years to serve. Why? Because he was created immortal. Death is not an option!!

The fire will not harm Satan -- the monotony and boredom will.

Consider the most boring useless thankless unnecessary job or service you have ever had to perform and multiply that by infinity. Ever spend a week in a prison, jail, or waiting in a doctor's office? Ever go through a "hell week" or two-a-day football practices in 100 degree temperatures? Time slows down.

Anyone who has will know that there can be positive aspects to death.

[center]============================================================================[/center]
Now consider Plan "B" -- which is mankind.

In the recreation of the earth begun in Genesis 1:3, God created mortal mankind a little lower than the angels to be trained as replacement caretakers for those who rebelled.

The original angels assigned to the earth were obviously not respecters of God at the time of their rebellion. These lower beings (mankind) must respect and believe in the Son of God as a prerequisite to becoming a spiritual beings which live forever.

Those who chose not to participate, or have any doubts, may opt out by dying.

Death is infinitely better than the possible worst case sentence one can receive as a result of sinning but being incapable of death!!

If there is any doubt, opt out.

OK, is that a better plan as compared to the original?

(Anyways, really enjoyed your great post Mr. Stoddart!)

[Jack Stoddart]

[Replying to post 867 by myth-one.com]

• Benoni is the artist:

As I mentioned I am an artist. I see God as a creator and am creating a perfect creation. To create something an artist does not start with a perfect piece of art; that happens when it is completed

• my response:

So we start with chaos, in the case of the universe..

According to Benoni's model, that is. God is going to develop order from chaos. We were considering events in the Eden myth, so I started my reply with the earth already there. A response using Genesis 2 iwould highlight different aspects of the mythology.[right]Genesis - AV
[font=Georgia]cf[/font] JB ©1966[/right]

• Benoni continued:

An artist/creator takes whatever it takes to create something out of nothing and God’s creation starts with the entire negative to build something very awesome and amazing.

I think you understood that, but I'll differentiate the two strands here. The idea that an artist begins with nothing ordered (allowing for the separation of pigment molecules into tubes) and created order, on the canvas, is one way to describe creation I suppose. But if the starting point for God's plan were Eden, well that is described as a paradise. The biblical idea is that from that ordered state the calamity of sin has wrought destruction. That does not seem to be Benoni's idea.[right]the garden myth
[font=Georgia]cf[/font] LXX - the precedent for paradise theology[/right]It is certainly not my idea.
.Adam never existed.
..Eve never existed.
...There was never any need for Jesus, insofar as he's presented in the New Testament.

We can see how planets are formed, it's a matter of obcervation. The hypotheses derived from observations of our own Solar system hold. They were fairly limited of course, and no-one claimed they were complete. In some cases (turbulence in the interplanetary medium during planet formation for instance) a number of proposals had been made, and by visiting Jupiter and Saturn to make precise measurements the need for speculation was reduced considerably. Now we can observe protoplanetary discs at various stages of development and with the next generation of telescopes launching from 2018 direct observations will be available. The biblical account has no merit whatsoever, from the order of creation of galaxies, stars, planets, prokaryotes, eukaryotes, flora and fauna to the desirability of murder, rape and genocide.

To say that "oh well, we know that God is perfect in knowledge therefore whatever we can observe must be what the words in Genesis mean" doesn't work. We already know what the words mean, the Greek words at least, and whoever wrote the Bible in most cases is supremely ignorant.

This proposed "god" is not only ignorant of his creation in virtually every detail but is the harbinger of death by the most hideous means and for the most grotesque of reasons whenever he speaks. There is no goodness in him at all. The people he condemns to hell—not according to me, I do not accept that he exists, but according to the source material itself—have built societies vastly more humane than anything attributed to him in the Bible. Hell is just par for the course in that dystopia.

Hell, God & Jesus are inventions of the Church. Remember that there was no New Testament until well after the Church appeared, at least a generation later. Nothing in it is an eyewitness account unless you want to have John's apocalypse as one—it is at least written in the 1st person—but other events such as non-existent eclipses, earthquakes, resurrected corpses and even a populated Nazareth are unsupported by any external source. There has been a huge archaeological undertaking over at least two centuries with not a skerrick unearthed and for so vast a proposition as the Exodus (for example) or the star of Bethlehem or the Passover eclipse absence of evidence does qualify to be considered as evidence of absence.

I submit that none of these events occurred, that the hell mythology is a deliberate fraud and that the alternative explanations we have are demonstrated to be accurate beyond all reasonable doubt. The originators of New Testament theology from Origen, Eusebius and Damasus to Aquinas, Luther and Wolsey are not good; by their fruit are they known and at its core is hell.

[Clownboat]

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.

First, there are no decent people. The thoughts of his heart are only evil continually. Man was created sin-ful. There is only One God. Belief, or faith, is a gift of God. It is from above, not below. God chooses, not man. And God would be quite within His Right as Creator to allow ALL mankind perish under its judgment which is death. Man is still under the penalty of sin. And unless God intervene in a persons life no flesh shall be saved. But God does intervene. Every person in the narrative of Scripture that had a relationship with God in His Covenant was called of God. Man has no free will. Free will in man is an illusion. There is only ONE God. And God does what He will with His creation. And He is completely Just, and Righteous, and Holy in the discharge of His will towards man. And no one can say to God, "Why have you made me thus?"

God is on His throne and all is right with the "world."

Your words sound like something I would expect church sheeple to say. I can say this because I was one for over 2 decades and I said the same things.
Your words are empty to me because I appear to be more moral than this god you choose to believe in.

Say what you must to hold your beliefs, but I will never be OK with human sacrifice, genocide, slavery or rape.

You can believe in this ugly (IMO) god all you want, but your belief does not make it true.

You would make for a great Muslim, but you were born in the wrong country I would guess.

If you are just here to tell us how proud you are of your chosen belief, I fear you are at the wrong site.

[otseng]

You would make for a great Muslim, but you were born in the wrong country I would guess.

Moderator Comment

Please avoid making any types of personal comments.

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.

[Danmark]

First, there are no decent people. The thoughts of his heart are only evil continually. Man was created sin-ful. ... Man has no free will. Free will in man is an illusion. There is only ONE God. And God does what He will with His creation. And He is completely Just, and Righteous, and Holy in the discharge of His will towards man. And no one can say to God, "Why have you made me thus?"

God is on His throne and all is right with the "world."

Sounds more like this God is wretched, evil, mean, a deceitful torturer; a truly evil being who wants his supposed creations to be miserable.

Fortunately I know this view of god is simply the product of the wretched and miserable imagination of sad, frustrated and small minds. I know this because I have met so many cheerful, happy, joyful, grateful and loving and generous people who are quite happily godless. What a joy it is to bury such sad and unproductive poison and simply live to create and bring happiness to others.

[jeremiah1five]

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.

1 John 5:9-13 (KJV)
9 If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son.
10 He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son.
11 And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.
12 He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.
13 These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.

[Jack Stoddart]

Man was created sin-ful. ... Man has no free will. Free will in man is an illusion. There is only ONE God. And God does what He will with His creation. And He is completely Just, and Righteous, and Holy in the discharge of His will towards man. And no one can say to God, "Why have you made me thus?"

God is on His throne and all is right with the "world."

Sounds more like this God is wretched, evil, mean, a deceitful torturer; a truly evil being who wants his supposed creations to be miserable.

Fortunately I know this view of god is simply the product of the wretched and miserable imagination of sad, frustrated and small minds. I know this because I have met so many cheerful, happy, joyful, grateful and loving and generous people who are quite happily godless. What a joy it is to bury such sad and unproductive poison and simply live to create and bring happiness to others.

Anyone who has read the Bible and thinks otherwise requires mental gymnastics of olympic agility, at any rate. In my experience that influences thinking more generally and although which came first is not easy to determine it would seem that being taught—and accepting—that loving someone because they will murder your children if you don't love them is actually love, which it isn't of course, is the corrupting influence.

The alternative is that people are born so compromised as to think like that innately. Perhaps a sociopath does not know what love is but I don't know whether that is a characteristic of brain physiology or an acquired functional impairment. In either case the co-operative nature of human society would not emerge and such thinking is therefore outside the norm.

However to play devil's advocate I can mention that there are cheerful, happy, joyful, grateful and loving and generous churchgoers too. The fly in that particular ointment is anxiety deriving from the declared fate of infidels. And to a believer the heathen has compromised their duty of fidelity to God.

• jeremiah1five wrote: [font=Georgia]“[/font]Man was created sin-ful[font=Georgia]â€�[/font]

According to the Bible, and I'm unaware of any other source for the doctrine of Sin, man was not created sinsul. Read about it here



[center]•[/center]

1 John 5:9-13 (KJV)

Here it is from the Jerusalem Bible ©1966 for comparison:

• 9-13 We accept the testimony of human witnesses, but God's testimony is much greater, and this is God's testimony, given as evidence for his Son. Everybody who believes in the Son of God has this testimony inside him; and anyone who will not believe God is making God out to be a liar, because he has not trusted the testimony God has given about his Son. This is the testimony: God has given us eternal life and this life is in his Son; anyone who has the Son has life, anyone who does not have the Son does not have life. I have written all this to you so that you who believe in the name of the Son of God may be sure that you have eternal life.

You see the problem is that I don't accept the testimony of human witnesses without evidence either of the events being reported or the reliability of the witness. And no witness who accepts that love can be commanded through fear and threats of murdering one's own children is reliable. It's not God who is the liar. It's the NT authors. So many of the events are demonstrably false that in them can be no truth at all. They are on the same level as Leda and the swan.

Pointing in the sky to Gemini and crying "Lo, her twins" is not evidence.
W. B. Yeatrs is not evidence. But Yeats is not claiming the event to be historical.
And in the case of Stars of Bethlehem or eclipses during full moons, such events although remarkable are witnessed by no-one at all. The NT accounts are not eye witness accounts. They are all written in the 3rd person during subsequent generations.

William Butler Yeats
sudden blow: the great wings beating still
Above the staggering girl, her thighs caressed
By the dark webs, her nape caught in his bill,
He holds her helpless breast upon his breast.

How can those terrified vague fingers push
The feathered glory from her loosening thighs?
And how can body, laid in that white rush,
But feel the strange heart beating where it lies?

A shudder in the loins engenders there
The broken wall, the burning roof and tower
And Agamemnon dead.

Being so caught up,

So mastered by the brute blood of the air,
Did she put on his knowledge with his power
Before the indifferent beak could let her drop?

• Earth girls do not lay eggs.

[OpenYourEyes]

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.

I go by how Jesus treated the Pharisees who were skeptical of him. For those who reject the Gospel when they hear then you leave them wiping even the dust off of you."


My response

Romans 1:20 also explains that all know that a God exists. If they want to get to a specific God then you have to pray about it or seek a relationship..

Also, the method of Sola Scriptura, which seems to be part of your request is a bad method. The Catholoc Church is an authority for Christians

[OpenYourEyes]

aglassdarkly wrote:
Thank you. No one is "decent" in God's sight because His standard is perfection."


My response:
Good point. The author presupposes a standard when he or she said "decent". How do we measure thst? Do the atheists who try to turn people away from Christianity count?