Non-believer go to hell, who's fault?

[serp777]

No, they're not "quite obvious". The thinking behind both was very different. To the Aztecs, sacrifice was a way of expressing gratitude to the Gods since They sacrificed Themselves to create and sustain the cosmos and to create humanity. It had nothing to do with sin offerings or making reparations, really. The Gods were also nourished and empowered by the blood of the sacrifice, especially that of the heart. It was reciprocity.

http://nyx.meccahosting.com/~a00001f1/cuezali/blood.html

The logic was similar in that they were both appeasing a God. I didn't say the Aztecs were exactly like the Christians just that there are parallels.

" In Nahuatl the word for sacrifice is vemanawhich derives from ventli (offering) and mana ‘to spread out’ representing the belief that sacrifices helped in the cycle of growth and death in food, life and energy."

Similarly, in Christianity, Jesus was sacrificed to help humans move away from sin just like how the Aztecs sacrificed in order to sustain the natural order of the world. Both were sacrifices which were aimed at providing benefits. The main difference is that Jesus helps you in the afterlife whereas the Aztec beliefs supposedly helped you to survive in the physical world. Both were done to appease God in order to gain a benefit. Again i'm not saying Aztec theology is identical to Christian theology, just that the underlying logic of human sacrifice was the same--that sacrificing someone to God will appease them and impart some benefit.

 

[serp777]

Actions need fuel. If he "has" or "does" actions, fuel is implied.

Why do God's actions need fuel? I agree human actions need fuel but God isn't human and isn't limited by any form of energy. I mean he supposedly created the universe out of nothing so he didn't require any belief fuel at that point for making the universe, which seems to be the action that would require the most fuel.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

The logic was similar in that they were both appeasing a God. I didn't say the Aztecs were exactly like the Christians just that there are parallels.

" In Nahuatl the word for sacrifice is vemanawhich derives from ventli (offering) and mana ‘to spread out’ representing the belief that sacrifices helped in the cycle of growth and death in food, life and energy."

Similarly, in Christianity, Jesus was sacrificed to help humans move away from sin just like how the Aztecs sacrificed in order to sustain the natural order of the world. Both were sacrifices which were aimed at providing benefits. The main difference is that Jesus helps you in the afterlife whereas the Aztec beliefs supposedly helped you to survive in the physical world. Both were done to appease God in order to gain a benefit. Again i'm not saying Aztec theology is identical to Christian theology, just that the underlying logic of human sacrifice was the same--that sacrificing someone to God will appease them and impart some benefit.

Well, if you're going to use that broad of a definition of sacrifice, then it's a bit meaningless.

 

[serp777]

Well, if you're going to use that broad of a definition of sacrifice, then it's a bit meaningless.

How is it meaningless? I'm using the standard dictionary definition-- "an act of slaughtering an animal or person or surrendering a possession as an offering to God or to a divine or supernatural figure." That has meaning to me, I don't know about you. I mean what would you propose as a definition. I'm all ears.

 

[Politesse]

Because he needs our belief to save us. No one can be dragged into heaven unwillingly.

He drags people to eternal torture unwillingly without a qualm, but suddenly gets all "polite" about sending people to heaven?

Either way, if he needs us to participate at all, he is either very weak or we are very powerful. Are we gods, or is he just a man?

 

[Thanda]

He drags people to eternal torture unwillingly without a qualm, but suddenly gets all "polite" about sending people to heaven?

He drags no one there unwillingly. There is heaven and hell. If you don't want to live the laws of heaven then where else can you go?

Either way, if he needs us to participate at all, he is either very weak or we are very powerful. Are we gods, or is he just a man?

We are people who God wants to make like him. God is not coerced by anyone to be who He is - So why should he coerce us?

 

[JoStories]

What exactly do you mean by "version of truth"? What do you understand the truth to be if you believe there are versions of it?

IMO, spiritual truth is different for each of us. For some, it means there is no God, for others, there is one. Furthermore, how one approaches faith is different based on how we understand the concept of God. If it were similar in all cases, there would be universal and worldwide acceptance of one faith and one alone. Yet, there is not. I am not speaking of truth as is right V wrong. Or truth V a lie. This kind of truth is vastly different for each of us and is something we must find on our own.

 

[JoStories]

This is a valid question. And it is one that the scriptures do not answer.

“The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some count slackness; but is longsuffering to you-ward, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.”
‭‭2 Peter‬ ‭3:9‬ ‭ASV‬‬
http://bible.com/12/2pe.3.9.asv

I take the above literally. However, there is also a doctrine called election. And within that study I am left with the same question that you have asked.

Now I would not argue as many of my fellow believers do about this because I am a strict literalist and I let the bible say what it says and I don't try to say what it doesn't say. Because I know not all will be saved as your question points out, I can only provide you with my attitude towards the idea that God is unfair in who is and is not saved.

I have to (by default) say that this question is asked from the created being's viewpoint based upon human emotions and human understanding of right vs wrong. And that the proper attitude from the creation's standpoint is that salvation for God's elect is the evidence and the outworking of the grace and love of Jehovah.

In love, Joy

With all due respect, you do understand how this paints your version of God into some kind of a monster, non? It intimates that God would consign millions of people to hell simply for choosing to follow a different form of God or the hubris to not follow one at all. Do you not think God is powerful enough to be able to make God's presence known to all types of faiths? Why could God's face not be that of Krishna or Surya or any of the other God's and faiths on this planet? IMO, your view limits God and I don't believe we, as a species, have the ability to limit such a being.

 

[JoStories]

Because he needs our belief to save us. No one can be dragged into heaven unwillingly.

This presumes that there is a heaven, which of course, no one can prove. What is it you think we need 'saving' from? Could it not be that we choose our path and our life's lessons to learn from and ultimately become enlightened?

 

[JoStories]

He drags no one there unwillingly. There is heaven and hell. If you don't want to live the laws of heaven then where else can you go?



We are people who God wants to make like him. God is not coerced by anyone to be who He is - So why should he coerce us?

Because having to choose between heaven or hell IS coercion. Either we live by the rules of the Bible or we get to spend eternity in hell. I don;t see that as the actions of a loving God who 'wants us to like him', a statement I find very hard to even understand, but rather the actions of a capricious child.

 

[Useless2015]

as I said before, we Pelagians don't care what Saint Paul said

That is not the point. It's in the Bible wether 'Pelagians' believe it or not.

 

[leibowde84]

Because he needs our belief to save us. No one can be dragged into heaven unwillingly.

Why not?

 

[atpollard]

Why not?

Presumably, you have the physical strength to take almost any woman you met by force.
If you also had the legal right to do so, would you?

Why not?
(God may have similar reasons for not 'taking' companions into heaven ... the Bible uses the analogy of 'the Bride of Christ').

 

[leibowde84]

Presumably, you have the physical strength to take almost any woman you met by force.
If you also had the legal right to do so, would you?

That seems like a non-sensical comparison. I wouldn't rape any woman because it would be harmful to that woman, both physically and psychologically. In other words, there is a victim to think about. With the situation at hand involving Jesus/God, there is no victim as heaven, presumably, would be better than any alternative regardless of the person's intent. God would know that taking companions to heaven would be for their benefit, whereas raping a woman doesn't help that woman out at all.

 

[Nurion]

Because he needs our belief to save us. No one can be dragged into heaven unwillingly.

I find that patently absurd. Well the whole notion of hell is, but that is another point. The pope recently abolished hell for unbabtised babies. Before that those children were sent to hell for being unbelievers, now they are sent to heaven instead, and that although they are not even aware of what religion is.

Under the premise that unbelievers are sent to hell, it seems obvious to me, that the fault lies in the system, which according to theists was created by God. Therefore it's God's fault. If God created a system where living a moral live would lead to admittance into the heavens, regardless of religious affiliation or belief, I'd have no problem with that at all. But saying that either you believe, or you burn in hell is the good old godfather connundrum "either you pay, or harm will come your way, it's your own choice". No it's not. I'm forced to make a choice that I do not want to take.

 

[atpollard]

That seems like a non-sensical comparison. I wouldn't rape any woman because it would be harmful to that woman, both physically and psychologically. In other words, there is a victim to think about. With the situation at hand involving Jesus/God, there is no victim as heaven, presumably, would be better than any alternative regardless of the person's intent. God would know that taking companions to heaven would be for their benefit, whereas raping a woman doesn't help that woman out at all.

Sorry, I thought that the comparison was obvious.
Just because you can do something (have the power to do it), does not make that the right thing to do.

Heaven, by definition, is the place where God is.
Everyone and everything in heaven exists to worship God.
To compel a being into heaven, to require he/she/it to worship God against their desire IS spiritual rape .. it is the removal of your free will (God's greatest gift to you).
So God created a place where God is not ... called Hell.
Whatever it is like and whether those there suffer, sleep, live in an Elysian Field ... whatever ... they do it without God.
They are not compelled to worship against their free will.

To say that God should force you into Heaven and Make you happy/love Him/want to worship Him ... is to cease to be YOU. A being of free will.
Heaven is for those who WANT to see God. Who WANT to love and worship God.

I think that Heaven and Hell is a quantum phenomenon ... like electron shell orbits.
The idea that one can be somewhere in between, that one can sort of want to be with God and sort of not want to be with God exists only in theory.
When the time comes, those who want to be with God, will be and those who do not wish to worship God as he is, will not be required to.
I suspect that the created will not enjoy existence without the creator, but that is your birthright ... it comes with free will.

Of course, all this is non-empirical conjecture based on faith.
So use it or ignore it as you wish.

 

[leibowde84]

Sorry, I thought that the comparison was obvious.
Just because you can do something (have the power to do it), does not make that the right thing to do.

Heaven, by definition, is the place where God is.
Everyone and everything in heaven exists to worship God.
To compel a being into heaven, to require he/she/it to worship God against their desire IS spiritual rape .. it is the removal of your free will (God's greatest gift to you).
So God created a place where God is not ... called Hell.
Whatever it is like and whether those there suffer, sleep, live in an Elysian Field ... whatever ... they do it without God.
They are not compelled to worship against their free will.

To say that God should force you into Heaven and Make you happy/love Him/want to worship Him ... is to cease to be YOU. A being of free will.
Heaven is for those who WANT to see God. Who WANT to love and worship God.

I think that Heaven and Hell is a quantum phenomenon ... like electron shell orbits.
The idea that one can be somewhere in between, that one can sort of want to be with God and sort of not want to be with God exists only in theory.
When the time comes, those who want to be with God, will be and those who do not wish to worship God as he is, will not be required to.
I suspect that the created will not enjoy existence without the creator, but that is your birthright ... it comes with free will.

Of course, all this is non-empirical conjecture based on faith.
So use it or ignore it as you wish.

Wouldn't everyone be willing to worship God if they were shown that God exists and shown paradise? Also, why do you see God as being so vain as to require worship (beyond what is claimed in scripture of course)? I wholeheartedly disagree with that view of God.

 

[Unification]

Title.

Edit: If you think anyone is at fault, explanation is welcome.

An "unbeliever" is one who is "unfaithful" to goodness.

Anyone doing anything contrary to goodness will leave them in states of burning/suffering/misery (hell.)

There are consequences for ones actions and choices.... poor choices and actions contrary to goodness will leave one suffering.

If someone does something contrary to goodness, they will go to hell... although not a literal place but will go into suffering created by themselves.

"Eternal" is a crappy translated word. It really means "abundant" or "for a period/age."

Hell isnt a place, it's a temporary and relative state of mind or state of being. The real good news for anyone is that they can escape suffering(hell) by changing and denying and overcoming the abstract enemies that are causing them hell. The main goal is for anyone to escape the bondage/chains/and enslavement of burning/suffering and finding an abundant and fulfilled life of peace and joy.

 

[leibowde84]

An "unbeliever" is one who is "unfaithful" to goodness.

Can you back this claim up? And provide a reliable source that confirms your definition? Because most atheists even fit into your definition of a believer, as they believe in goodness.

 

[atpollard]

Wouldn't everyone be willing to worship God if they were shown that God exists and shown paradise?

You seem to be asking if God could bribe everyone into worshiping him. In Job, Satan accuses God of doing just that - buying Job's loyalty. So I guess the answer is: maybe.
[I would have said yes before coming to RF. Now I have met people that I am not so sure ANYTHING would change their minds.]

Also, why do you see God as being so vain as to require worship (beyond what is claimed in scripture of course)? I wholeheartedly disagree with that view of God.

I see God as requiring absolutely NOTHING from anyone. It is one of the strengths of the Trinitarian view ... God can even love without any outside help and not be narcissistic.
It is innate to being an Omniscient, Omnipotent, Omnipresent Creator that God is worthy of worship (reverence to God for his innate character) and praise (gratitude for what God has done) ... hence the voluntary nature of entrance into Heaven.