Do Atheists go to hell?

[Kathryn]

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.

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.

I clarified that I wasn't including Revelations in my weekend reading.

As for the other examples you give - I think you will find the answers if you take the time to actually read Paul's epistles.

 

[Cesar]

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.

Mercy is not a contraction. His having mercy on her, however, implies that she did something wrong, so Jesus wasn't saying that law was exaggerated, bad or anything like that. He was not disproving that law. He was, instead, accusing those people, who wanted so vehemently to stone her, of hypocrisy. As the saying goes, "People hate evil more than they love good". They were so blinded by a false sense of righteousness that they failed to see they shouldn't be so eager to get rid of a sinner when they themselves are so horribly sinful.

Moreover, you have to remember that, since God is the One giving laws, He can also cancel them. For example, it was forbidden by the Mosaic Law, given by God, to eat lobster. The eating of lobster, nonetheless, was 'legalized' by God in the New Covenant despite having been prohibited in the Old Covenant. It's not a contradiction - what He binds, He can also unbind.

 

[Blackdog22]

Mercy is not a contraction. His having mercy on her, however, implies that she did something wrong, so Jesus wasn't saying that law was exaggerated, bad or anything like that. He was not disproving that law. He was, instead, accusing those people, who wanted so vehemently to stone her, of hypocrisy. As the saying goes, "People hate evil more than they love good". They were so blinded by a false sense of righteousness that they failed to see they shouldn't be so eager to get rid of a sinner when they themselves are so horribly sinful.

Moreover, you have to remember that, since God is the One giving laws, He can also cancel them. For example, it was forbidden by the Mosaic Law, given by God, to eat lobster. The eating of lobster, nonetheless, was 'legalized' by God in the New Covenant despite having been prohibited in the Old Covenant. It's not a contradiction - what He binds, He can also unbind.

I didn't say mercy was a contradiction. I am saying telling people to stone each other for 98-198,000 years and then going.... You know what NEVERMIND!! DDD I LOVE YOU! is ridiculous.

Of course it would be hypocrisy, name one stoning instance where it wouldn't be. Do you honestly think the people that stoned the guy picking up sticks were free of sin? The whole thing is hypocritical which is why I don't follow it. I am more honest than that.

I would also ask what you mean by Jesus not thinking that law was bad. If he thought it was good why didn't he let them stone her? He could of pointed out that they should love good more, but why stop them from stoning her, which was considered good because it was Gods law. Think of how many Mary Magdalenes were stoned to death where God didn't intervene over the course of 98-198,000 years, why was Mary so special that God decided to drop in on her situation and bail her out? Sounds a lot like picking favorites.

That is also another way of saying God is inconsistent or God has no solid grasp on what he thinks is moral. If he can change what he considers moral on a whim after 98-198,000 years then how can you say what is moral and what isn't? Would you be out stoning old ladies at Lowe's on Sundays 10,000 years ago? What if God came back tomorrow and told you to start stoning everyone again and that owning slaves was cool? If Gods morality is that flimsy, and you follow God, then you are admitted to your own morality being flimsy. It sounds like a bad system to me.

I would also like to point out that:

Malachi 3:6
“For I, the LORD, do not change; therefore you, O sons of Jacob, are not consumed.

Sounds like God doesn't change, but changed. Contradiction?

 

[Blackdog22]

I clarified that I wasn't including Revelations in my weekend reading.

As for the other examples you give - I think you will find the answers if you take the time to actually read Paul's epistles.

I have read Pauls epistles. He is considered crazy by most people he speaks too from the sounds of it and he contradicts Jesus and the OT God quite a few times. Some Christians completely ignore Paul because of how much he gets wrong.

 

[Kathryn]

I have read Pauls epistles. He is considered crazy by most people he speaks too from the sounds of it and he contradicts Jesus and the OT God quite a few times. Some Christians completely ignore Paul because of how much he gets wrong.

I don't reach those same conclusions when reading the New Testament.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

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.

If we cannot pay for an offense due to our limited nature then it stands to reason that we cannot offend due to our limited nature. Again, why does it go one way and not the other?

I simply do not understand the Christian obsession with viewing themselves as irredeemable wretched dogs.

 

[Cesar]

Of course it would be hypocrisy, name one stoning instance where it wouldn't be. Do you honestly think the people that stoned the guy picking up sticks were free of sin? The whole thing is hypocritical which is why I don't follow it. I am more honest than that.

I would also ask what you mean by Jesus not thinking that law was bad. If he thought it was good why didn't he let them stone her? He could of pointed out that they should love good more, but why stop them from stoning her, which was considered good because it was Gods law. Think of how many Mary Magdalenes were stoned to death where God didn't intervene over the course of 98-198,000 years, why was Mary so special that God decided to drop in on her situation and bail her out? Sounds a lot like picking favorites.

That is also another way of saying God is inconsistent or God has no solid grasp on what he thinks is moral. If he can change what he considers moral on a whim after 98-198,000 years then how can you say what is moral and what isn't? Would you be out stoning old ladies at Lowe's on Sundays 10,000 years ago? What if God came back tomorrow and told you to start stoning everyone again and that owning slaves was cool? If Gods morality is that flimsy, and you follow God, then you are admitted to your own morality being flimsy. It sounds like a bad system to me.

I would also like to point out that:

Malachi 3:6
“For I, the LORD, do not change; therefore you, O sons of Jacob, are not consumed.

Sounds like God doesn't change, but changed. Contradiction?

It's not a "never mind" attitude. He wasn't condemning the law about stoning, but was accusing those people of hypocrisy. Indeed, all people are sinful, but those people were also in denial of the Son of God. Now, if God were to send everyone to hell (which He could justly do, owing to our fall nature), then God would only prove His justice. However, Christ wants humanity to learn that not only is God righteous and just, but He's also merciful and gracious.

Jesus still saw the sin in her, because she had broken the Law. However, instead of justly punishing her, He had mercy on her. There was nothing good in Mary Magdalene that made her unique. That's the point of Christianity - none deserves anything expect for hell because of sin, yet God, in His graces, chooses people according to His will so they will be saved. They're not special and they don't come to Christ by their own - it's the Father Who first draws them to the Son. No merits; salvation is a gift, not sth to be earned.

Again, He didn't 'legalize' prostitution. That's not the point He's making, that He allegedly though she had no sin. After all, you can't have mercy on somebody that had no guilt.

 

[Cesar]

If we cannot pay for an offense due to our limited nature then it stands to reason that we cannot offend due to our limited nature. Again, why does it go one way and not the other?

I simply do not understand the Christian obsession with viewing themselves as irredeemable wretched dogs.

The Bible, however, declares that we can offend our Creator for doing evil continually and being ensnared by our fallen, depraved nature. "It stands to reason..." this is not valid. It was the same lie which Adam and Eve were taken in by, thinking that they should value their 'reason' and replace God's Revelation (Sola Scriptura), which ultimately led to their death, as God had foretold (first, in a spiritual manner, becoming fallen in sin and incapable of doing good, like all of us; eventually, physical death). It's God, the Creator, Who is the Origin of truth, justice, beauty, not the created.

 

[Blackdog22]

It's not a "never mind" attitude. He wasn't condemning the law about stoning, but was accusing those people of hypocrisy. Indeed, all people are sinful, but those people were also in denial of the Son of God. Now, if God were to send everyone to hell (which He could justly do, owing to our fall nature), then God would only prove His justice. However, Christ wants humanity to learn that not only is God righteous and just, but He's also merciful and gracious.

Jesus still saw the sin in her, because she had broken the Law. However, instead of justly punishing her, He had mercy on her. There was nothing good in Mary Magdalene that made her unique. That's the point of Christianity - none deserves anything expect for hell because of sin, yet God, in His graces, chooses people according to His will so they will be saved. They're not special and they don't come to Christ by their own - it's the Father Who first draws them to the Son. No merits; salvation is a gift, not sth to be earned.


Again, He didn't 'legalize' prostitution. That's not the point He's making, that He allegedly though she had no sin. After all, you can't have mercy on somebody that had no guilt.

So, Jesus is pro stoning, but just wanted to make a quick point to a very select group of people? So if those people went across the street and stoned some prostitute named Beth, Jesus would've looked on with all smiles? This is the person you worship?

Those people weren't even aware that Jesus was the son of God, along with the rest of the world. You can't be in denial of something that you have no knowledge of.

My god... So, in your opinion, it is just and moral to slaughter everyone on earth because of the sins of 2 people that caused the fall? So, you are pro slaughtering everyone who doesn't accept Jesus? When I ask if you are pro slaughtering, I mean do you agree with Gods morality, which is pro slaughtering according to you.

As for the second paragraph, I would say that, if you believed Jesus was the son of God, you could only argue that God was merciful for 1-2% of the time, which would make him an unmerciful, vengeful, jealous, spiteful, pro slaughtering and stoning of anyone who doesn't bow to him for 98-99% of the time. I say 98-99% of the time because Jesus wasn't available for mercy until around 2000 years ago and our species has been around for 98-198,000 years.

I think what this will ultimately come down to is me not agreeing with your morality. If you think stoning old ladies at Lowe's on Sunday is a "good" thing then your morality is as far away from good as possible from my perspective.

 

[Cesar]

Those people weren't even aware that Jesus was the son of God, along with the rest of the world. You can't be in denial of something that you have no knowledge of.

My god... So, in your opinion, it is just and moral to slaughter everyone on earth because of the sins of 2 people that caused the fall? So, you are pro slaughtering everyone who doesn't accept Jesus? When I ask if you are pro slaughtering, I mean do you agree with Gods morality, which is pro slaughtering according to you.

As for the second paragraph, I would say that, if you believed Jesus was the son of God, you could only argue that God was merciful for 1-2% of the time, which would make him an unmerciful, vengeful, jealous, spiteful, pro slaughtering and stoning of anyone who doesn't bow to him for 98-99% of the time. I say 98-99% of the time because Jesus wasn't available for mercy until around 2000 years ago and our species has been around for 98-198,000 years.

I think what this will ultimately come down to is me not agreeing with your morality. If you think stoning old ladies at Lowe's on Sunday is a "good" thing then your morality is as far away from good as possible from my perspective.

Those people had been around when Jesus had been preaching. And His preaching as not over, but they would still resent Him.

When I was referring to the punishment of all people, I didn't mean for it to be human-inflicted, but God-inflicted. So no, I don't believe we, as Christians, should go stone people. The stoning was, nonetheless, a punishment in the Old Covenant (with the Jews). In the New Covenant, however, we are not told to do this. That doesn't change the fact that prostitution is still a sin and the same applies for sins in general, but it's not up to believers to stone others. Personally, I haven't read enough about this particular subject, but God may have commanded the Israelites to have this capital punishment in order to preserve the integrity and holiness of Israel, whom God had elected to be His nation and from whom the Messiah would be born.

Additionally, it's not just the guild of the Original Sin. We all sin from our early lives till the end. Yes, I do agree with God's morality (although I obviously don't mean that He needs my approval, it's just to answer your question). Still, that doesn't imply that I kill people - that's not the point I'm making and I've mentioned this one difference (among many others) between the Old Covenant (related to Moses and the Israelites) and the New Covenant, which is perfect (sealed by the blood of the Son of God) and eternal.

I've stated this before - God is the Origin of justice, morality, meaning and so on, not you, not me, not anybody else. It's not God Who is accountable to our subjective and fallen standards, but we are to be judged by Him. God is showing mercy even now by not sending all of us right now into hell. We like to think that we deserve this and that, while, in truth, we don't deserve anything. So wicked and depraved are we that it's impossible to please the perfect, holy and just God. Still, He shows mercy. He could have never revealed Himself (thus showing no mercy) and could have justly condemned us all. He is far more merciful than you believe, but you need to understand that we are nowhere nearly as virtuous and special as you think.

Indeed, we can agree that we disagree.

 

[Iti oj]

Mercy is not a contraction. His having mercy on her, however, implies that she did something wrong, so Jesus wasn't saying that law was exaggerated, bad or anything like that. He was not disproving that law. He was, instead, accusing those people, who wanted so vehemently to stone her, of hypocrisy. As the saying goes, "People hate evil more than they love good". They were so blinded by a false sense of righteousness that they failed to see they shouldn't be so eager to get rid of a sinner when they themselves are so horribly sinful.

Moreover, you have to remember that, since God is the One giving laws, He can also cancel them. For example, it was forbidden by the Mosaic Law, given by God, to eat lobster. The eating of lobster, nonetheless, was 'legalized' by God in the New Covenant despite having been prohibited in the Old Covenant. It's not a contradiction - what He binds, He can also unbind.

i have never heard that saying but its quite good and accurate, lol where or from whom did it originate?

 

[Cesar]

i have never heard that saying but its quite good and accurate, lol where or from whom did it originate?

I assume you're referring to "People hate evil more than they love good". To be honest, I don't remember where exactly I know it from, but it must have been in the context of the Reformation and Martin Luther. It may have been from the film called "Luther" (2003) or from some of his writings.

Edit: I've found it. It's what a monk tells Luther in that 2003 film.

 

[leon_the_14]

You'll have to wait till Judgment Day to find out.
Will Richard Dawkins go there? Most probably and deserves to along with Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot etc.

 

[Blackdog22]

You'll have to wait till Judgment Day to find out.
Will Richard Dawkins go there? Most probably and deserves to along with Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot etc.

Nothing like a good threat of hellfire on a Monday night.

First off, if God exists and he is going to wait to torture everyone who doesn't believe in him, without any evidence whatsoever, in eternal hellfire only AFTER we have proof of him, then that God is immoral and would be immoral to you if any human took a similiar stance, but God gets a free ticket because he is powerful? That is morality to you?

Secondly, are you really relating a guys lack of belief to mass murderers? This is your mindset? This is what scares me about religion, you can look at someone who doesn't believe exactly as you do and convince yourself that they are worthy of eternal torture of the same level that a mass murderer would be. What is wrong with you?

 

[Iti oj]

I assume you're referring to "People hate evil more than they love good". To be honest, I don't remember where exactly I know it from, but it must have been in the context of the Reformation and Martin Luther. It may have been from the film called "Luther" (2003) or from some of his writings.

Edit: I've found it. It's what a monk tells Luther in that 2003 film.

thank you. and hmm seems like something i might use....and watch

 

[Blackdog22]

Those people had been around when Jesus had been preaching. And His preaching as not over, but they would still resent Him.

When I was referring to the punishment of all people, I didn't mean for it to be human-inflicted, but God-inflicted. So no, I don't believe we, as Christians, should go stone people. The stoning was, nonetheless, a punishment in the Old Covenant (with the Jews). In the New Covenant, however, we are not told to do this. That doesn't change the fact that prostitution is still a sin and the same applies for sins in general, but it's not up to believers to stone others. Personally, I haven't read enough about this particular subject, but God may have commanded the Israelites to have this capital punishment in order to preserve the integrity and holiness of Israel, whom God had elected to be His nation and from whom the Messiah would be born.

Additionally, it's not just the guild of the Original Sin. We all sin from our early lives till the end. Yes, I do agree with God's morality (although I obviously don't mean that He needs my approval, it's just to answer your question). Still, that doesn't imply that I kill people - that's not the point I'm making and I've mentioned this one difference (among many others) between the Old Covenant (related to Moses and the Israelites) and the New Covenant, which is perfect (sealed by the blood of the Son of God) and eternal.

I've stated this before - God is the Origin of justice, morality, meaning and so on, not you, not me, not anybody else. It's not God Who is accountable to our subjective and fallen standards, but we are to be judged by Him. God is showing mercy even now by not sending all of us right now into hell. We like to think that we deserve this and that, while, in truth, we don't deserve anything. So wicked and depraved are we that it's impossible to please the perfect, holy and just God. Still, He shows mercy. He could have never revealed Himself (thus showing no mercy) and could have justly condemned us all. He is far more merciful than you believe, but you need to understand that we are nowhere nearly as virtuous and special as you think.

Indeed, we can agree that we disagree.

I guess ill take a stab at this even though I am sure we won't reach any moral agreement.

Preaching doesn't = proof of being Gods son. There were lots of Messiahs going around and any rational person would be hesitant to believe that anyone who was up preaching was automatically the Messiah. I see people still claiming to be the Messiah, you could also claim I was in denial of their proof of being the messiah, that proof being preaching according to you.

To your second paragraph, it is intended to be human inflicted according to your God. It was to be human inflicted up until 2,000 years ago, again your God was pro stoning for 98-99% of the time and you happen to agree with this. So if we went back in time 2,020 years ago you are telling me you would be the person stoning old ladies at Lowe's? Really? What if God changes the rules tomorrow? Will you be on board tomorrow to stone everyone at Lowe's on Sunday? Kids, wives, Dads, grandfathers?? Would you then consider that "preserving the integrity" of the USA? That is what you base your morality off of?

Yet I don't hear you saying that stoning people is wrong. It sounds like you are pro stoning and that you adhere to Jesus being pro stoning, but you just don't really do it? You do realize how bad that sounds right? I can say that I don't rape people, but I don't really think it is wrong and even think it is good. Does that sound like a good moral stance in your opinion?

As for your final paragraph, if God is the origin of morality then you have to say that stoning people to death, genocide, slaves, rape, etc were good moral guidelines for the 98-99% of the time our species has been on this planet. It appears the only reason you don't stone people today is BECAUSE of secular morality telling you its not okay. It definitely isn't God or Jesus saying that stoning people isn't okay, but our secular morality. In other words, we are moral in spite of God not because of him and it is demonstrable.

I would also like to point out that I am not addressing any "fallen standards" by humans, but I am discussing Gods standard as is shown in the Bible.

To wrap up I will say the entire end of your last paragraph wreaks of a person who has no self worth because his religion says he has none. I find it monstrous that someone could look at themselves as such a worthless individual and think this is the lens that they should view themselves through because an all "good" God says that they should.

 

[Scott C.]

My belief on the final judgment is what one of our scriptures from the Book of Mormon says:

The time shall come when all shall see the salvation of the Lord; when every nation, kindred, tongue, and people shall see eye to eye and shall confess before God that his judgments are just.

I don't believe that anyone on that day will believe that God's judgment is unfair. We'll see clearly that God knows everything about us, our hearts, our intentions, our actions, how we were raised, and all of the circumstances of our environments and lives. Only God can comprehend it all and make a righteous judgement. We'll know it's right when the time comes.

I also believe what Joseph Smith taught:

While one portion of the human race is judging and condemning the other without mercy, the Great Parent of the universe looks upon the whole human family with a fatherly care and paternal regard; He views them as His offspring. . . . He is a wise Lawgiver, and will judge all men, not according to the narrow, contracted notions of men, but, ‘according to the deeds done in the body whether they be good or evil,' or whether these deeds were done in England, America, Spain, Turkey, or India. . . . We need not doubt the wisdom and intelligence of the Great Jehovah; He will award judgment or mercy to all nations.

 

[cottage]

You'll have to wait till Judgment Day to find out.
Will Richard Dawkins go there? Most probably and deserves to along with Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot etc.

On the one hand we have thoughtful, intelligent theists presenting good arguments and on the other we have those who think anyone who simply disbelieves the dogma should be classed with those who have committed some of the worse crimes against humanity. Disgraceful.