Do Atheists go to hell?

[Cesar]

Would you join me in a thread regarding why an omnipotent being requires any means to an end to accomplish a goal; particularly one that seems unnecessarily focused on slaughter?

I'm not particularly interested in what "seems" to be in a particular fashion. I assume you're just another Humanist who throws some emotional vomiting at concepts and beliefs that "seem" unjustifiable.

 

[Chadley]

If your belief in a god entails a hell, do you think that atheists are going there? If so, why? If not, why? If you think that atheists are going to hell, do you think that this is a just and moral system?

And if you also claim that your god is moral and just, and he sends atheists to hell, how do you justify his morality?

Yes, Atheists go to hell. Because they do not walk the path god has put in front of them to achieve heaven. And if any religion has some other form of punishment that isn't exactly Hell, Atheists get that too.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

An offense against an infinite Being cannot be paid by finite people.

Sorry, I was reading through the thread and this remark leaped out at me and I just had to ask a question: If a finite people cannot pay for an offense against an infinite being then how is it that a finite people can even offend an infinite being in the first place?

 

[Cesar]

Sorry, I was reading through the thread and this remark leaped out at me and I just had to ask a question: If a finite people cannot pay for an offense against an infinite being then how is it that a finite people can even offend an infinite being in the first place?

Because they disobey the laws set by their Creator, Who commands His creation to do certain things. God didn't create us just so we would do whatever we wanted and I am definitely not for deism.

 

[Meow Mix]

I'm not particularly interested in what "seems" to be in a particular fashion. I assume you're just another Humanist who throws some emotional vomiting at concepts and beliefs that "seem" unjustifiable.

It doesn't have to focus on my subjective assessment -- and I'd politely ask that you not make assumptions about me or use belligerent terminology like "vomiting" until you get to know me. I'm a friendly and reasonable gal.

So, you can ignore the subjective question about the focus on slaughter and instead focus on the logical question of why an omnipotent being would require any sort of means to an end instead. If you're not interested then that's okay, I'm just legitimately curious about why a being with the capacity to actualize any logically possible state of affairs would require some medium through which to accomplish its goal.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

Because they disobey the laws set by their Creator, Who commands His creation to do certain things. God didn't create us just so we would do whatever we wanted and I am definitely not for deism.

I don't think you quite understand where I'm coming from. What I'm really trying to say is that it is logically impossible for an infinite being to be offended by a finite one. At the very least, if an infinite being can be offended by a finite being then why is it that the finite being cannot pay for it? How is it that it works in one direction but not the other? Put another way, why is it so easy to offend an infinite being but impossible to pay him for it?

 

[Breathe]

Yes, Atheists go to hell. Because they do not walk the path god has put in front of them to achieve heaven. And if any religion has some other form of punishment that isn't exactly Hell, Atheists get that too.

Not simply for being atheists, in my view.

 

[Sheila]

There are no atheist or unbelievers in hell. For all have become believers----- by the time they get there.
You have to believe that God exists to be able to accept Him and know that His name is Jesus Christ.

 

[Blackdog22]

There are no atheist or unbelievers in hell. For all have become believers----- by the time they get there.
You have to believe that God exists to be able to accept Him and know that His name is Jesus Christ.

Yeah, its quite a cruel system. God gives us proof just in time to throw us in hell. Logic and reason loses in this religion, if this God is the type to give us logic and reason and then burn us "forever" for using it then we were set to fail to begin with.

 

[Kathryn]

I don't waste time trying to determine if other people are going to hell. I've got my hands full keeping my own soul and life in order. I'll leave the judging to someone else.

 

[Cesar]

I don't think you quite understand where I'm coming from. What I'm really trying to say is that it is logically impossible for an infinite being to be offended by a finite one. At the very least, if an infinite being can be offended by a finite being then why is it that the finite being cannot pay for it? How is it that it works in one direction but not the other? Put another way, why is it so easy to offend an infinite being but impossible to pay him for it?

Well, God gave His creation a purpose and we are subject to His Law, because thus was His Will. We are told in Scriptures that carnal people (the unregenerate) cannot please God and that they are under the Wrath of God. Due to the Original Sin, we have become totally depraved, we can only sin continually and we're in a state of enmity to God, Who is, unlike us, holy, righteous, sinless and perfect. Just as some will be saved, many more will perish forever.

However, we cannot pay for such an offense because of our limited nature and it is for this reason that Christ's sacrifice was necessary.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

There are various types of laws - you can have administration laws, moral laws and so on.

Our perception of morality doesn't need to be true. As a matter of fact, it's only natural that fallen, depraved being, overwhelmed by sin, detest God's holiness. It's not us that determine what is good and what is bad.

And yet you trust the words of people who assume to know what God believes is God or bad.

Like it or not, you still pick and choose what morals you take from the Bible, so you are still deciding for yourself what constitutes good and bad. Unless you follow every letter of the Law, you are picking and choosing your morality just as anyone else is.

The 'rape' thing happened in times of war. God allowed the Israelites to take women and children our of grace, as He had demanded the extermination of those who they were fighting in order to maintain the Hebrew people. Additionally, if a woman cried for help, she didn't have to marry the man, since he would be killed as punishment for rape. All you do is take verses out of context.

You haven't answered a single one of my questions. I'll ask again:

Is it right that a woman should be forced to marry their rapist (regardless of whether or nor she cried for help)?
Is it responsible to allow such a marriage to occur?

I was pretty sure you were referring to Abraham. It was not so much an intention to make somebody sacrifice somebody else, but to test Abraham's faith, who was willing to do so for the love of the Lord. It's not that God didn't know what Abraham would do and I think it's more an example of faith for us.

Again, you failed to answer my question. This story demonstrates clearly the point I have made previously, that God's moral code is conditional. If it is considered a good thing that a man would be willing to sacrifice his own son just because God demanded it, then it doesn't matter that God stopped him from doing so. The only point the parable could be making is that you should be willing to do anything, no matter how deplorable, if God demands it of you - including human sacrifice and infanticide. How can you try and justify it about being about "love" or "faith" when any rational human being could see that such a parable is nothing but sick.

You also omit the fact that God stopped Abraham when he was about to kill his son. It could have also been a foreshadow of what would happen to Christ.

Actually, no I didn't. I clearly acknowledged that.

Animal sacrifices were acceptable during the Old testament. I will go though this for the sake of conversation, although I grow quite fed up with your lack of knowledge.

I attended Christian schools for half my life. Do not presume I lack knowledge of your belief just because I oppose it.

You oppose Christianity because it seems 'repellant' to you, but you don't have much idea what you're opposing. Any idea what the difference between the Aaronic priesthood and the Melchizedek priesthood is? Probably none at all. They were making animal sacrifices as limited and temporal atonement for their sins.

So that's okay, then? The whole idea of people needing to do that in the first place is not barbaric to you?

Christ's sacrifice, however, is forever and infinite, because there is no need to put Him back on the cross over and over again, unlike the case with animals. Again, only an infinite Being can pay the price for offenses against an infinite Being. And that's why Christians don't sacrifice animals. I find it very amusing how modern-day people think they're so smart and innovative that they believe their ideas will suddenly shake up what has been for so many centuries. It's good to test and reprove, but when you do have some basic knowledge about it.

You're starting to sound incredibly arrogant and condescending. Shelve it.

You seem to have missed my point entirely about how this indicates conditionality in God's law. You need to re-read my argument and try again.

I, for one, think that we've already gone to0 far away from the aim of this thread. I've participated in this conversation, I've answered your questions (except for the one asking what I would do if God were to declare rape moral, which I said was a nonsense and against God's nature).

Quite wrongly, since God permitted rape, sacrifice and infinite torture. Who are you to say what God's nature is?

We agree that we disagree and I think we should rest our case (at least on this "do atheists go to hell" thread). You believe what you believe, I believe what I believe and none of us is going to just change the other's mind.

No. Let's agree that you're wrong. I'm not one for letting people get out of arguments that aren't going their way.

 

[Reverend Rick]

Does not the Bible say judge not lest ye be judged?

 

[Heretic29]

No disrespect to believers, but, its always going to be an opinion. Different people are going to tell you different
things on the matter. That is one of the reasons i became a non believer. Some are going to say your damned to hell, while others are going to say that you have time to find the lord once Jesus comes back. Too many
contradictions for me to establish a firm belief system.

 

[Kathryn]

No disrespect to believers, but, its always going to be an opinion. Different people are going to tell you different
things on the matter. That is one of the reasons i became a non believer. Some are going to say your damned to hell, while others are going to say that you have time to find the lord once Jesus comes back. Too many
contradictions for me to establish a firm belief system.

My advice would be to sit down, read the New Testament, and make up your own mind. It's really not that hard to understand - but people try to superimpose their own agendas onto what the Bible says.

That's human nature -it's not limited to religion.

You're responsible for your own beliefs and practices regardless of what other people do or say.

 

[Caladan]

My advice would be to sit down, read the New Testament, and make up your own mind. It's really not that hard to understand - but people try to superimpose their own agendas onto what the Bible says.

That's human nature -it's not limited to religion.

You're responsible for your own beliefs and practices regardless of what other people do or say.

Good point. after I first read the NT, one of the first obvious questions that rose was, how can such a straightforward text, with passages such as the Sermon on the Mount could have been so widely misused throughout history, or used to represent so many radically different agendas.
whether one is religious or not, or even a member of a Christian denomination or not, I think that reading this text is highly educational and valuable in itself to get a first hand perspective.

 

[Kathryn]

Good point. after I first read the NT, one of the first obvious questions that rose was, how can such a straightforward text, with passages such as the Sermon on the Mount could have been so widely misused throughout history, or used to represent so many radically different agendas.
whether one is religious or not, or even a member of a Christian denomination or not, I think that reading this text is highly educational and valuable in itself to get a first hand perspective.

Right on - and it's not even that LONG. I have read the entire NT in one weekend - with plenty of breaks for other activities.

That is to say, I've read it all in one weekend except for the book of Revelations. That's a whole other story!

But the Gospels and the Epistles? Easy reading, very straightforward as you point out, and also interesting.

 

[Cesar]

And yet you trust the words of people who assume to know what God believes is God or bad.

Like it or not, you still pick and choose what morals you take from the Bible, so you are still deciding for yourself what constitutes good and bad. Unless you follow every letter of the Law, you are picking and choosing your morality just as anyone else is.


You haven't answered a single one of my questions. I'll ask again:

Is it right that a woman should be forced to marry their rapist (regardless of whether or nor she cried for help)?
Is it responsible to allow such a marriage to occur?


Again, you failed to answer my question. This story demonstrates clearly the point I have made previously, that God's moral code is conditional. If it is considered a good thing that a man would be willing to sacrifice his own son just because God demanded it, then it doesn't matter that God stopped him from doing so. The only point the parable could be making is that you should be willing to do anything, no matter how deplorable, if God demands it of you - including human sacrifice and infanticide. How can you try and justify it about being about "love" or "faith" when any rational human being could see that such a parable is nothing but sick.

God gave the Mosaic Law to the people Whom He, by His own Will and not based on people's merit, chose. They were required certain things and forbidden others. However, the Mosaic Law is linked to the Old Testament and it is dependent on it. While it was then prohibited to eat certain animals, for instance, Christ now declares them clean. It's His world and His rules. Still, there are varying types of laws, as I've said before. There were laws regarding eating that now longer apply to the New Covenant and that's why we're not observing them - not because we're "picking" what we like.

Why are you interested in what I "believe", in what I "feel"? Unlike you, I am not a Humanist. I do not begin with man. As the Genesis 1:1 says, "In the beginning... God"; not "In the beginning... man". Such a woman had to marry the that man because she had partaken in the act. If, however, she cried and opposed that, she was innocent and only the man would be put to death.

You take a highly superficial view here: "just because God demanded it". Again... man is not the measure of all things and the absolute standard - God is. Yes, it was both love and faith (Abraham's) in the Lord.

 

[Caladan]

Right on - and it's not even that LONG. I have read the entire NT in one weekend - with plenty of breaks for other activities.

That is to say, I've read it all in one weekend except for the book of Revelations. That's a whole other story!

But the Gospels and the Epistles? Easy reading, very straightforward as you point out, and also interesting.

Yeap, doesn't take long to read, and the material is very interesting. no longer do we live in an age when the Bible is not available in our language, where there is illiteracy, etc. today you should read it for yourself before any priest explains it to you.

 

[Blackdog22]

My advice would be to sit down, read the New Testament, and make up your own mind. It's really not that hard to understand - but people try to superimpose their own agendas onto what the Bible says.

That's human nature -it's not limited to religion.

You're responsible for your own beliefs and practices regardless of what other people do or say.

Have you read Revelations? If you got that book down 100% then that is impressive. Considering that is the book concerning our Earths future and considering it gives me images of non believers being brutally murdered by Jesus and his angels sending plagues to burn us and devour us. I would advice anyone wanting to believe in this theology to skip that book.

It just doesn't sit right with me, but I agree everyone should read the book for themselves. My personal problem is you read the NT and get images of hellfire, turning your cheek and forgiveness, Woman inequality and Jesus loves us all equally.

Other than that Jesus is a contradiction to himself(assuming he is God). Mary Magdalane was being stoned because God commanded that people committing sinful acts be stoned, then Jesus(God) comes in and says not to stone her... Um...

God command that people working on the Sabbath be stoned then Jesus lets his disciples pick corn on the Sabbath. Considering God is timeless that would mean Jesus(God) commanded people to be stoned to death for 98,000+ years from our perspective, but then from his perspective says "Stone people on the sabbath, but don't," "Murder the pagans, but turn the other cheek and don't murder them."

This makes a whole lot of no sense imo.