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

[leibowde84]

The guy who wrote the following disagrees:
3 Then will ye longer deny the Christ, or can ye behold the Lamb of God? Do ye suppose that ye shall dwell with him under a consciousness of your guilt? Do ye suppose that ye could be happy to dwell with that holy Being, when your souls are racked with a consciousness of guilt that ye have ever abused his laws?

4 Behold, I say unto you that ye would be more miserable to dwell with a holy and just God, under a consciousness of your filthiness before him, than ye would to dwell with the damned souls in hell.

5 For behold, when ye shall be brought to see yournakedness before God, and also the glory of God, and theholiness of Jesus Christ, it will kindle a flame of unquenchable fire upon you. (Mormon 9)

I certainly don't grant any authority whatsoever to Joseph Smith or the Book of Mormon. So, I'm not sure where this comes from. I mean, I have enough trouble rationalizing giving the Gospel writers legitimacy in my mind.

Some people in my country may not agree with you. Some think raping a woman will make her heterosexual. Some think it will teach her manners. Are they justified?

No, they are ignorant. There is absolutely no reason to think these things would be true, experts in the field of psychology would suggest such craziness, and it is an obvious way of justifying a horrible act (which should be outright ridiculed). If opinions run contrary to all available studies, evidence, and expert consensus, they should be called-out as such.

 

[leibowde84]

Do you believe entitlement is a good quality to have?

No, I'm not talking about entitlement. I'm talking about the cruelty of God inherent in your logic to deny heaven to any soul willingly.

 

[leibowde84]

How come they believe in Paul? Are you suggesting they know less about the Bible than you?

No, I think they have an undeniable confirmation bias to start their reasoning with the notion that the Bible is accurate, which distorts their ability to judge the text objectively.

 

[atpollard]

Regarding what I highlighted, how does anyone know, by definition, where is God at all? Can you prove this statement? Of course not. It is nothing more than your belief, so claiming that God 'lives' there is just belief and cannot be substantiated.

Actually, that is the Merriam-Webster definition of Heaven:
"the place where God lives and where good people go after they die according to some religions"

That sort of makes it self-proving.

 

[Thanda]

I agree to a point. In Buddhism, suffering is a part of the path, a part of the journey to enlightenment. One cannot understand good if one does not understand bad. The problem with the monotheistic faiths is the duality of the religion. Right V wrong, Bad V Good. In most eastern faiths, life is a balance. A Yin and Yang view of how we progress on our paths. And Dukkha, or suffering, is absolutely essential to move further along on that path. We must embrace our suffering to understand it. In this life, I am experiencing severe loss and pain. Maybe in the next, it will be another thing. That is what we choose in the Bardo state. A place sort of like a way station between one life and the next. We do not need to be held accountable for wrong choices as much as we need to learn why we made those choices and how they affected us or those around us.

You would be mistaken if you thought suffering was not welcomed or viewed as an essential part of progression in the Christian faith. However Jesus said "Sufficient is the day unto the evil thereof". By that he meant, each day has enough problems of its own without us adding to it. It there Bible near perfect people and even perfect people went through suffering. Abraham waited many years for his son; Moses endured all kinds of trials while leading the children of Israel to the promised land; we all know about Job. Of Jesus Paul said "though He were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which He suffered".

From these examples we learn that suffering is an integral part of our experience and journey here on earth. We also learn something even more important: you don't need to sin in order to experience suffering. Those who sin therefore are adding more suffering to themselves than what was necessary. They were already going to experience suffering even if they did not sin. But by their sin they increase their own suffering (and often that of others). So no one is justified in committing sin just because "suffering, is absolutely essential to move further along on that path".

And finally, it is your opinion that we do not need to be held accountable for our choices. Most other institutions and scholars have come to the realisation that without accountability there is no progress, no learning, and no growth. That is why almost every successful organisation in existence requires its members to make regular reports and to be held accountable for their actions. If you, for whatever reason, believe this is actually wrong or unnecessary than you obviously possess a wisdom most people on this earth do not.

 

[Thanda]

But here again, one cannot 'let go' of pain or suffering. These are the lessons we have chosen to learn from. There is no hell other than that which we create for ourselves. In each life, we learn more and ultimately, the goal is enlightenment to become one with the concept of God, IMO. There is no hell in my view. Only forward movement along the path to enlightenment.

And that is where I will never agree with you. I will never agree that there is "only forward movement". I honestly believe there is also a lot of backward movement as well. I made my feelings known to you in another thread in which I referred to the teachings of the Dalai Lama from the article you pointed me to. I am satisfied that even if the Buddhist model of reincarnation is true: that in no way proves your assertion that everyone will eventually be enlightened. Because if the same soul (I forgot the name used in Buddhism) rises each time the person is reincarnated, then it follows that, if God is just, that soul rises with both his faults and his strengths gained from the previous life/lives. And if he made more bad decisions that good in the previous life then it should follow that he will be more likely in his next life to make more bad choices than good. It cannot be that in each life a person only rises with the good of the previous life - at least I would consider it unjust and irrational if it were so.

 

[Thanda]

I would ask why one would not choose to be reborn and find the truth along our journey. I suppose one could choose to remain in the Bardo state, although I cannot imagine why one would do so. I would rather continue to learn and evolve in order to achieve that enlightenment that is the ultimate goal.

Is that a tenet of your faith though, that people can decide they're tired of the whole process and they just want to stop. Because if they can't make the choice then they are stuck, like as in the Christian model, with only two choices to make. And if they ever felt like they wanted to stop (and we know that human beings make all kinds of irrational decisions) they would begin to see the reincarnation process as a hell.

 

[Thanda]

I certainly don't grant any authority whatsoever to Joseph Smith or the Book of Mormon. So, I'm not sure where this comes from. I mean, I have enough trouble rationalizing giving the Gospel writers legitimacy in my mind.

These quotes were not an appeal to authority. They were to show you that there is a rational behind why God would not drag people into heaven. Do you have any counter points to the argument put forward in these verses?

No, they are ignorant. There is absolutely no reason to think these things would be true, experts in the field of psychology would suggest such craziness, and it is an obvious way of justifying a horrible act (which should be outright ridiculed). If opinions run contrary to all available studies, evidence, and expert consensus, they should be called-out as such.

And it is likewise ignorant to think people would be happier of they were forced into heaven than if they were sent to live in hell.

 

[Thanda]

No, I'm not talking about entitlement. I'm talking about the cruelty of God inherent in your logic to deny heaven to any soul willingly.

God deny's no one anything. Can you imagine a student at a university refusing to study and then ultimately failing; can you imagine that student blaming the university and saying "This university is cruel! How could they deny me my degree". Now tell me, who really denied the student the degree, the university or the student himself?

 

[Thanda]

So, you believe that God is limited by his own principles? Basically, God is not able to go against his own wishes? Honestly, I feel like your last comment was a bit of a cop-out. It sounds as if you are saying "that's just the way God is", which ends any chance we have at reasonable discourse.

There was a thread I started a while ago called "The Righteousness of God". In it I describe why I believe there must be and are principles in this universe to which even God must adhere if he is to be able to call himself good, or righteous.

But of course just like any person God has values which they will not violate. Just because those values make things hard for those of us who want a free ride into heaven, doesn't mean they are wrong or cruel.

 

[leibowde84]

These quotes were not an appeal to authority. They were to show you that there is a rational behind why God would not drag people into heaven. Do you have any counter points to the argument put forward in these verses?

The guy who wrote the following disagrees:
3 Then will ye longer deny the Christ, or can ye behold the Lamb of God? Do ye suppose that ye shall dwell with him under a consciousness of your guilt? Do ye suppose that ye could be happy to dwell with that holy Being, when your souls are racked with a consciousness of guilt that ye have ever abused his laws?

4 Behold, I say unto you that ye would be more miserable to dwell with a holy and just God, under a consciousness of your filthiness before him, than ye would to dwell with the damned souls in hell.

5 For behold, when ye shall be brought to see yournakedness before God, and also the glory of God, and theholiness of Jesus Christ, it will kindle a flame of unquenchable fire upon you. (Mormon 9)

God has the ability to "cleanse" our souls and can relieve our guilt through forgiveness and enlightenment. If God is all-powerful, he can change us. And, if heaven is "paradise" as Jesus is claimed to have said, we would be better off with God in Heaven. So, if guilt is the issue, God should relive that guilt, forgive our transgressions, and get right with us. We are the imperfect creation, so God is in a much better position to convince us of the "good" than we are ourselves. So, it seems cruel to me that God would refuse to take it upon himself to make us "right" with him so that we can enjoy paradise at his side.

And it is likewise ignorant to think people would be happier of they were forced into heaven than if they were sent to live in hell.

In my mind, we would certainly be better off and happier if we were relieved of this "guilt" and were made "right" with our claimed creator. If God is loving and all-powerful, being at his side would surely be more beneficial than being separated from him. Further, God has the power to "change our minds and hearts", which would eradicate the issue you present here. Thus, I think God should take it upon himself to make sure he does what he needs to in order to get us to heaven. Imho, anything short of this would be an indication of God's cruelty. If he CAN help us, decency demands that he MUST.

 

[Thanda]

God has the ability to "cleanse" our souls and can relieve our guilt through forgiveness and enlightenment. If God is all-powerful, he can change us. And, if heaven is "paradise" as Jesus is claimed to have said, we would be better off with God in Heaven. So, if guilt is the issue, God should relive that guilt, forgive our transgressions, and get right with us. We are the imperfect creation, so God is in a much better position to convince us of the "good" than we are ourselves. So, it seems cruel to me that God would refuse to take it upon himself to make us "right" with him so that we can enjoy paradise at his side.

Of course he can. And he has said as much. And he has told us how we can have our souls cleansed, our guilt removed and our minds enlightened. The questions is, are we willing to do what is necessary?

God has his hand stretched out to us - will we grab it? God has his arms open - will we embrace him?

"Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me." Revelation 3:20

God has, is and will always call out to us. He does not care what our past sins have been. He doesn't care if we've ever cursed Him. All he wants is for us to return home. But He will not force anyone, not even a single soul. Our free will is most sacred and God will never interfere with it. In fact that is what the war in heaven was all about as recorded in the book of Moses:

1 And I, the Lord God, spake unto Moses, saying: That Satan, whom thou hast commanded in the name of mine Only Begotten, is the same which was from the beginning, and he came before me, saying—Behold, here am I, send me, I will be thy son, and I will redeem all mankind, that one soul shall not be lost, and surely I will do it; wherefore give me thine honor.

2 But, behold, my Beloved Son, which was my Beloved and Chosen from the beginning, said unto me—Father, thy will be done, and the glory be thine forever.

3 Wherefore, because that Satan rebelled against me, and sought to destroy the agency of man, which I, the Lord God, had given him, and also, that I should give unto him mine own power; by the power of mine Only Begotten, I caused that he should be cast down;

4 And he became Satan, yea, even the devil, the father of all lies, to deceive and to blind men, and to lead them captive at his will, even as many as would not hearken unto my voice.​

Our ability to choose is an essential part of our ability to reach our potential. God chooses to be who he is. He doesn't want anything less for his children.

 

[Intojoy]

Thank you but no. I believe in God but I don't believe in a book written by men to cow people into being nothing more than automans, IMO. I am Buddhist. I have spent my entire life studying all the faiths on this planet, including yours. And IMO, God has the capacity to be able to reveal God's self to all faiths. This exclusivity that the Christian faith espouses is nothing more than that, exclusivity and it makes no sense whatsoever. I would suggest you study the Vedas for one, as the parallels to your faith are unmistakable. Or perhaps the Upanishads. But even in reading those, one must keep in mind that the books were written by men. Perhaps inspired, perhaps not. But tor me, the journey to God is a very personal one and not one that can be explained by a book.

You're welcome

 

[JoStories]

Our ability to choose is an essential part of our ability to reach our potential. God chooses to be who he is. He doesn't want anything less for his children.

Your last sentence is where your faith falls apart for me. I cannot understand this mindset of God being a 'father' figure. It assigns gender to a concept or being that we have no way to be able to do such a thing. I read a very interesting article in National Geographic yesterday about the cave found in South Africa which provides a very clear link to our evolution from primate to homo sapien. The Denaledi cave, I believe. This proof, at least for me, sets aside the idea of God 'creating' us. I do believe a creator God set the stage but I do not see God as a male gender being that is my father. Nor I 'his' child. I fully understand that for some, this relationship is the most comforting and I applaud that for those whom it works for but I can't adhere to this type of dogma. A 'father' would never consign their children to hell. Among other off setting ideas that this paternal God application seems to imply.

 

[JoStories]

You're welcome

This has to be one of the most nonsensical responses I have gotten. Why do you think I was thanking you? I was trying to be polite but in no way does your faith work for me. And you failed to address any of the points in my post. So what is the point of this post?

 

[JoStories]

Is that a tenet of your faith though, that people can decide they're tired of the whole process and they just want to stop. Because if they can't make the choice then they are stuck, like as in the Christian model, with only two choices to make. And if they ever felt like they wanted to stop (and we know that human beings make all kinds of irrational decisions) they would begin to see the reincarnation process as a hell.

I personally cannot conceive of ever wanting to stop so I am unable to fathom such a scenario. It is in no way a hell for me to want to achieve enlightenment. The process of moving through each lifetime can and has been painful, extremely so in some as in this lifetime. Losing one's children in not something I would have liked to have learned. I felt as though someone had reached into my being and ripped out my soul, literally. The pain of that experience was almost more than I could bear. But I, in my view of this journey, chose to experience this for whatever reason. So I have to trust my journey. But to want to stop moving along? Never.

 

[JoStories]

And that is where I will never agree with you. I will never agree that there is "only forward movement". I honestly believe there is also a lot of backward movement as well. I made my feelings known to you in another thread in which I referred to the teachings of the Dalai Lama from the article you pointed me to. I am satisfied that even if the Buddhist model of reincarnation is true: that in no way proves your assertion that everyone will eventually be enlightened. Because if the same soul (I forgot the name used in Buddhism) rises each time the person is reincarnated, then it follows that, if God is just, that soul rises with both his faults and his strengths gained from the previous life/lives. And if he made more bad decisions that good in the previous life then it should follow that he will be more likely in his next life to make more bad choices than good. It cannot be that in each life a person only rises with the good of the previous life - at least I would consider it unjust and irrational if it were so.

I understand how you could see this this way but I don't see it that way. For me, the process of moving from one life to the next is not about carrying on with all of the faults or wrongdoings from all past lives but rather having put to rest those lessons that we did learn from previous lifetimes and finding other things we still need to experience or learn. My best friend and I have shared many lifetime together and in one, we were sex slaves. It was a horrid life and we both have discusses it at length. This time, I am experiencing loss and she is learning similar things as we work further along our path. Each life, IMO, gets further along this path. Imagine starting the journey as a serf and ending it as the lord of the mansion. This is one way to envision this, albeit one that is grossly unfair to those of lower classes and in no way do I mean disrespect. It is merely an analogy.

 

[JoStories]

Actually, that is the Merriam-Webster definition of Heaven:
"the place where God lives and where good people go after they die according to some religions"

That sort of makes it self-proving.

This definition was written by men and in no way proves a thing. It is simply the most apt way of defining a concept. It doesn't prove a thing.

 

[Intojoy]

This has to be one of the most nonsensical responses I have gotten. Why do you think I was thanking you? I was trying to be polite but in no way does your faith work for me. And you failed to address any of the points in my post. So what is the point of this post?

Glad I could help.

 

[Thanda]

Your last sentence is where your faith falls apart for me. I cannot understand this mindset of God being a 'father' figure. It assigns gender to a concept or being that we have no way to be able to do such a thing. I read a very interesting article in National Geographic yesterday about the cave found in South Africa which provides a very clear link to our evolution from primate to homo sapien. The Denaledi cave, I believe. This proof, at least for me, sets aside the idea of God 'creating' us. I do believe a creator God set the stage but I do not see God as a male gender being that is my father. Nor I 'his' child. I fully understand that for some, this relationship is the most comforting and I applaud that for those whom it works for but I can't adhere to this type of dogma. A 'father' would never consign their children to hell. Among other off setting ideas that this paternal God application seems to imply.

I suppose you're welcome to create any image of God you choose. God's gender is not that important. Even in the Bible there aren't any scriptures that discuss God's gender. It is just taken for granted he is male and then it is pretty much ignored afterward. The Ten Commandments were given to both genders. The commandment to pray was given to both genders. And the promise of salvation was given to both genders.

W.r.t your last two sentences - My understanding of a father is that he would do all he can to help his children avoid situations that are harmful to them. But any good father would always respect their children's freedom to choose. If a father has two children (let's suppose they are 19 and 20) and one of the children gets involved in gangsterism, the father would have to do all he can to help the wayward child see the light. If the child refuses however, the father has a responsibility to protect his obedient child. The obedient child has a right to a safe home and has a right to live in a home where he isn't constantly being pressured into joining gangs. For the obedient child's sake the father will need to cast the disobedient child out. Now of course the father could build a beautiful house for the unrepentant wayward child - which I'm sure is what you would want him to do - but brick will build a house but not a home. A beautiful house can either be a heaven or a hell depending on the people who live in there. The wayward son would likely invite his friends to his new home and the beautiful home his father built him would become a hell.

Understand this Jo, heaven and hell is what the people who live in it make it. The wicked will turn any place into hell. The righteous will turn any place into heaven. To quote JRR Tolkein: "For it is not the [land] that makes its people deathless, but the Deathless that dwell therein have hallowed the land"
Or to paraphrase him: For it is not heaven that makes people happy, but the happy that live there have made that place a heaven.