Do Atheists go to hell?

[ImmortalFlame]

Sin entered the world through their disobedience. They, however, did not create sin. Evil is the absence of good, like cold is the absence of heat. So no, God did not create sin. It's just separation from His holiness.

If God is omnipresent, how is it possible for there to be an absence of him anywhere? Regardless, you're still faced with an inherent contradiction. Did God create everything or not? If he did, then he is responsible for the creation of sin.

Jesus is God. I do believe in predestination and that God wanted Adam and Eve to fall, although He didn't make them do it. It was their personal choice, not God's fault that they fell.

And yet he knew it was going to happen and how the power to prevent it.

Does not everything go according to God's will? If so, then God planned them to fall.

I think the Father wanted to exalt the Son and glorify Him though His sacrifice. He did what is totally impossible for humans - save them from the Wrath of God because of their sins.God didn't create an irredeemable world; it's quite a nonsense, because the creation was perfect and there was nothing from which to be redeemed. Redemption became needed after people's choice to disobey their Creator.

You seem to have completely ignored my point. Firstly, God created a world that was perfect knowing that humans would screw it up - in spite of the fact that he created a world that they were able to screw up. Secondly, he allowed humanity to suffer under oppressive and impossible moral standards and condemned millions of human beings to eternal torture simply for being born. Thirdly, he sends himself down - in human form - to sacrifice himself to himself in order to "save" humanity from a world he created (which allowed to be despoiled), and an impossible moral standard that he himself imposed.

If all of that is true, then God is an idiot.

It was a sacrifice, since He died for our sins and suffered hell on the cross.

Compared to an eternal life as the omnipotent, all-knowing dictator of the Universe, a few days nailed to a cross is a small price to pay. Keep in mind that this was a being who apparently deemed it perfectly fair to condemn people to eternal torture simply because they were born at the wrong time due to the actions of their great, great, great ancestors. And yet he seems to think that a few days on the cross is sufficient "sacrifice" to justify not only the redemption of humanity, but his own ascent back to being the king of all creation. Such a God is a psychotic, evil, manipulative, selfish jerk.

How does that dictate whether something is true or not?

You have a point, but the question is why believe something (for which there is no evidence) that is so morally repellent? If you have to believe in a God, why not believe in a God who is more reasonable and less arbitrary.

It's called mercy. But you're right in a sense - we all deserve to perish by His holy wrath.

You can go on believing that if you want, but frankly I think the vast, vast, vast majority of humanity is infinitely superior to the God you describe, and it's pretty easy to see why.

 

[Reverend Rick]

Thats not the position that I'm making. Example: Say we have two people, person one lives a good decent life and is a christian. Person two, also lives a good decent life, but is an atheist. Which person according to christian doctrine is more likely to suffer the torments of hell, the atheist or the christian?

I don't think that is the issue for God. The point is, no matter how good a person is will not be the deciding factor. To enter heaven and not go to hell is about belief and forgiveness instead of doing good IMHO.

 

[Cesar]

If God is omnipresent, how is it possible for there to be an absence of him anywhere? Regardless, you're still faced with an inherent contradiction. Did God create everything or not? If he did, then he is responsible for the creation of sin.


And yet he knew it was going to happen and how the power to prevent it.

Does not everything go according to God's will? If so, then God planned them to fall.


You seem to have completely ignored my point. Firstly, God created a world that was perfect knowing that humans would screw it up - in spite of the fact that he created a world that they were able to screw up. Secondly, he allowed humanity to suffer under oppressive and impossible moral standards and condemned millions of human being to eternal torture simply for being born. Thirdly, he sends himself down - in human form - to sacrifice himself to himself in order to "save" humanity from a world he created (which allowed to be despoiled), and an impossible moral standard that he himself imposed.

If all of that is true, then God is an idiot.


Compared to an eternal life as the omnipotent, all-knowing dictator of the Universe, a few days nailed to a cross is a small price to pay. Keep in mind that this was a being who apparently deemed it perfectly fair to condemn people to eternal torture simply because they were born at the wrong time due to the actions of their great, great, great ancestors. And yet he seems to think that a few days on the cross is sufficient "sacrifice" to justify not only the redemption of humanity, but his own ascent back to being the kind of all creation. Such a God is a psychotic, evil, manipulative, selfish jerk.


You have a point, but the question is why believe something (for which there is no evidence) that is so morally repellent? If you have to believe in a God, why not believe in a God who is more reasonable and less arbitrary.


You can go on believing that if you want, but frankly I think the vast, vast, vast majority of humanity is infinitely superior to the God you describe, and it's pretty easy to see why.

It is absence in the sense that they lacked in holiness, in the perfection which they used to have formerly. He did create everything. However, sin is not created. It is the opposite of holiness. As I've stated before, I do believe that God wanted them to fall.

His sacrifice was not nearly as superficial as you claim. The greatest being in the world chose to humble Himself and to suffer for the cause of people, who do not even deserve salvation. God didn't act out of owing us something. It was grace.

It's not about the days of suffering - it's quality, not quantity. An offense against an infinite Being cannot be paid by finite people. Christ, however, being God, could do so. You do not comprehend the gravity of all this - it was the most horrific act people could have ever done - crucify God incarnate, Who chose to took the sins of the world on Him, not because He had to, but because of His grace.

I agree that you find this 'morally repellant' and I cannot force you to believe - that would not even be genuine faith if you were to believe something merely out of fear or due to tradition. Nonetheless, I do not believe it is 'morally repellent'.

 

[Reverend Rick]

Lets take a situation. Lets say guy A just gets done with supper at a restraurant and sees a woman and thinks about sex for a few seconds then gets shot in the head. According to your theology this person should "burn forever."

Not according to my religion, this guy would still go to heaven because of saving grace IMHO.

Now lets take guy B. He is a good Christian, but has problems with lust that he is trying to overcome. He has a relapse and ends up stumbling into a porn site while searching the internet. He has just lusted the same as Guy A, but Guy B gets shot in the stomach and has the chance to ask forgiveness. Should Guy B live forever in Heaven while guy A is tortured forever in hell?

I believe both would go to heaven, but that is for God to decide not us.

What if Guy B raped someone and then asked forgiveness? What if he murdered someone? What if he was Hitler?

My point in all of this is I don't believe any salvation based on "belief" in something completely unknowable and thus dishonest is in anyway moral. If Guy A lives his entire life trying to better himself and Guy B lives as a murderer his entire life and asks forgiveness to some unknowable being on his very last breath, I don't see Guy B worthy of eternal paradise. Why do you see Guy A worthy of eternal torture?

If there is a hell and and all mighty God, I believe many preachers will burn while many criminals in prison guilty of terrible things will be forgiven and go to heaven.

It is not about the kind of life you lead, it has to do with forgiveness and belief IMHO.

 

[Reverend Rick]

So if there is such a place as hell then God caused the existence of such a place.
For if everything created by God was good, then nothing created by God was evil. Therefore if every existent thing is good, then no existent thing is evil. Yet there is evil. Therefore, if some existent things are evil then not everything created by God was good.

If God created everything, then he created both good and bad in all of us IMHO.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

It is absence in the sense that they lacked in holiness, in the perfection which they used to have formerly. He did create everything. However, sin is not created.

So, God created everything, but sin is not created? That's a contradiction. Either God created everything - sin included, or God did not, by definition, create everything.

It is the opposite of holiness. As I've stated before, I do believe that God wanted them to fall.

So God wanted millions of people to suffer in eternal hell for no reason?

His sacrifice was not nearly as superficial as you claim. The greatest being in the world chose to humble Himself and to suffer for the cause of people, who do not even deserve salvation. God didn't act out of owing us something. It was grace.

What garbage. Jesus lead thousands of followers and told them how to live their lives and worship him; that's hardly humble. And once he'd done his "sacrifice" (which was only apparently necesarry because of rules he created in the first place) he got to be God again. If you lower yourself from an all-powerful being to being, well, an all-powerful being praised and followed by thousands who also happens to inhabit a human body, then raise yourself back up to Godhood, you have not sacrificed anything. Not a single thing. If God doesn't owe us anything, then we don't owe him anything.

It's not about the days of suffering - it's quality, not quantity. An offense against an infinite Being cannot be paid by finite people. Christ, however, being God, could do so. You do not comprehend the gravity of all this - it was the most horrific act people could have ever done - crucify God incarnate, Who chose to took the sins of the world on Him, not because He had to, but because of His grace.

Again, drivel. The most horrific act is not people nailing an all-powerful being (by their choice) to a cross. The most horrible act is a creator (or father) allowing his creation (or children) to be eternally tortured for any reason. To demand eternal, undying, unconditional loyalty without earning any by deed or else condemning people to eternal punishment. To allow suffering when it can be prevented. Compared to the evil your God supposedly inflicted on humanity, being nailed to a cross was absolutely nothing. In fact, it was literally nothing, because God is an ageless, timeless, all-powerful being to whom a few days of pain are completely irrelevant.

I agree that you find this 'morally repellant' and I cannot force you to believe - that would not even be genuine faith if you were to believe something merely out of fear or due to tradition. Nonetheless, I do not believe it is 'morally repellent'.

Then you are morally repellent as well.

Of course, I don't actually believe that. I'm willing to believe that you're a perfectly decent person who wouldn't - as your God does - think it is reasonable or just to torture people infinitely for finite crimes. You obviously, therefore, do think it is morally wrong - but when it comes to God you grant him some kind of exception from your own moral standard. You're too scared to admit that you believe in a God that is less worthy of your praise than you are, or your family, or anyone you've probably ever met.

Tell me, if God came down tomorrow and decreed that rape and murder were no longer sins, and they that were now requirements to enter heaven - would you then go out and rape and murder people?

 

[Cesar]

Well, I guess we can only agree that we disagree. I personally have no problem with God's sovereignty, while you find it unjustifiable and there's pretty much nothing I can do about that. Paul encountered this kind of question in his days and he simply replied that none of us is in the position to question the Creator, and this is actually a sin if the intention does not come from somebody that has been regenerated by God.

I am not scared. As I've said before, I have no problem with what I have stated above.

I've gone through this and I said that God is the essence of good. Good is good, because God is good and morality is like that because it's in accordance with God's nature, so it's nonsense to assess that God might declare sins to be morally acceptable.

 

[Reverend Rick]

Tell me, if God came down tomorrow and decreed that rape and murder were no longer sins, and they that were now requirements to enter heaven - would you then go out and rape and murder people?

This is the most thought provoking question I have read here at RF in years. :yes:

It truly deserves a thread all of it's own. :clap

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Well, I guess we can only agree that we disagree. I personally have no problem with God's sovereignty, while you find it unjustifiable and there's pretty much nothing I can do about that. Paul encountered this kind of question in his days and he simply replied that none of us is in the position to question the Creator, and this is actually a sin if the intention does not come from somebody that has been regenerated by God.

Of course we're in a position - who else could? We have brains with which to assess the claims that people bring to us, and I don't know about you, but if someone comes to me with the proposition of an all-powerful creator which is self-contradictory, arbitrary and morally reprehensible, I'm inclined not to believe them. Never con yourself into believing in something we shouldn't question. Such a position can only cause credulity and encourage ignorance.

I've gone though this and I said that God is the essence of good. Good is good, because God is good and morality is like that because it's in accordance with God's nature, so it's nonsense to assess that God might declare sins to be morally acceptable.

Why not? According to the Bible he allowed (even endorsed) slavery, rapists marrying their victims and human sacrifice. Who are you to say what God finds morally acceptable? So, I'll ask again, if God came down to earth and decreed that rape and murder were necesarry to get into heaven, would you bend to his wishes?

This is the most thought provoking question I have read here at RF in years. :yes:

It truly deserves a thread all of it's own. :clap

I've encountered the question before (I'm not much for originality) on other forums, etc. It's generally considered the "God the mafia boss" question.

So far, the only response I've heard from theists is "God wouldn't do that". I'm really aching for a real answer to the question.

 

[Cesar]

Why not? According to the Bible he allowed (even endorsed) slavery, rapists marrying their victims and human sacrifice. Who are you to say what God finds morally acceptable? So, I'll ask again, if God came down to earth and decreed that rape and murder were necesarry to get into heaven, would you bend to his wishes?

He didn't make sins right. You misinterpret the Scriptures, as do many people who read the Bible just to mock Christianity. Slavery was pretty much needed during those times because of the conditions at the time. God wanted to establish certain regulations for the slave/master relationship. I'm not saying it is the best thing and I don't believe we need to have slaves.

The rapists thing is more about assuming responsibility for the deed committed, not encouraging people to rape.

Human sacrificing? When did people make a human sacrifice which God had commanded them to do?

Again, it would be contradictory to God's nature to command such a thing, because He would never order people to do evil.

 

[Reverend Rick]

I've encountered the question before (I'm not much for originality) on other forums, etc. It's generally considered the "God the mafia boss" question.

So far, the only response I've heard from theists is "God wouldn't do that". I'm really aching for a real answer to the question.

If you start the thread, I will not give you a canned response, I promise.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

He didn't make sins right. You misinterpret the Scriptures, as do many people who read the Bible just to mock Christianity. Slavery was pretty much needed during those times because of the conditions at the time.

And that makes it alright? So, God's moral standard is conditional?

I'm not saying it is the best thing and I don't believe we need to have slaves.

I wouldn't believe you did. The point is that God - a supposedly all-loving and moral being - permitted and endorsed an act which we now consider morally repellant.

The rapists thing is more about assuming responsibility for the deed committed, not encouraging people to rape.

So you think it's morally correct for a victim of rape to be forced to marry their rapist? That's responsible?

Human sacrificing? When did people make a human sacrifice which God had commanded them to do?

Perhaps not, but he still commanded Abraham to sacrifice his son - and Abraham obeyed. God then rewards Abraham for being willing to kill his own child at God's request. What message is God sending there? That you are a good person if you're willing to murder your own children at his whim? What kind of sick, evil, twisted morality is that?

Also, people seem to forget that this was then immediately followed bty Abraham spotting a ram tangled in nearby bushes and sacrificing it instead. Hence, God permitted animal sacrifice. Surpisingly, this act is generally not encouraged in the modern church. I wonder why.

Again, it would be contradictory to God's nature to command such a thing, because He would never order people to do evil.

But surely, according to you, it's God who decides what is good and what is evil. So, if God decided to change his mind about whether or not rape and murder were evil, who are you to say they are?

 

[JeshuaJohn]

if the question is the heaven that Christians believe in, no an atheist cannot make it there but many of us professed Christians will not go to heaven either. No one can really tell who will go and who will not that is entirely in Gods supreme reserve.

 

[Cesar]

And that makes it alright? So, God's moral standard is conditional?


I wouldn't believe you did. The point is that God - a supposedly all-loving and moral being - permitted and endorsed an act which we now consider morally repellant.


So you think it's morally correct for a victim of rape to be forced to marry their rapist? That's responsible?


Perhaps not, but he still commanded Abraham to sacrifice his son - and Abraham obeyed. God then rewards Abraham for being willing to kill his own child at God's request. What message is God sending there? That you are a good person if you're willing to murder your own children at his whim? What kind of sick, evil, twisted morality is that?

Also, people seem to forget that this was then immediately followed bty Abraham spotting a ram tangled in nearby bushes and sacrificing it instead. Hence, God permitted animal sacrifice. Surpisingly, this act is generally not encouraged in the modern church. I wonder why.


But surely, according to you, it's God who decides what is good and what is evil. So, if God decided to change his mind about whether or not rape and murder were evil, who are you to say they are?

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.

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.

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. 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.

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. 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. 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.


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). 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.

 

[JeshuaJohn]

If God decreed that, just as He decreed that king Saul should slaughter the Amalekites including all the women and children then the best thing would be to do just that ,however the scriptures are complete and God does not change so what makes you think this way is it something you wish God did?

 

[Zap Brannagan]

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.

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.

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. 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.

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. 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. 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.


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). 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.

Thank you. I have some ammo I was missing - sadly. Do you happen to have the verse/s for this one handy ?

"Additionally, if a woman cried for help, she didn't have to marry the man, since he would be killed as punishment for rape.

 

[Cesar]

Thank you. I have some ammo I was missing - sadly. Do you happen to have the verse/s for this one handy ?

"Additionally, if a woman cried for help, she didn't have to marry the man, since he would be killed as punishment for rape.

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Deuteronomy 22:25-27[/FONT]

 

[Zap Brannagan]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Deuteronomy 22:25-27[/FONT]

Thank you sir.

 

[Cesar]

Thank you sir.

You're welcome. Drop the "sir".

 

[Meow Mix]

...They were making animal sacrifices as limited and temporal atonement for their sins. 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.

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?