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

[cambridge79]

That's just nonsense. I said God is fair, I didn't say people are going to go to heaven no matter what they believe in. Can you imagine someone going into heaven who doesn't believe heaven exists?

are you implying that since i dont believe in hell there is no risk that i will end up there? Well it s one more reason not to believe than.

 

[Willamena]

Title.

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

It was me. It's my fault.

I'm sorry.

 

[JoStories]

You seem to have a very different way of thinking. What is the point of enlightenment if it doesn't make people happy? Indeed why would someone, having entered the Bardo state, and having a choice between going through all the trials and tribulations of life, or remaining there; why would such an individual choose to continue if he will not become any happier by doing so?

And I know it is only your opinion - we're both discussing our opinions on the spiritual.

Enlightenment is not about happy or sad. That is the dichotomous nature of the monotheistic faiths again. Enlightenment is about knowledge and understanding. One cannot be happy without knowing what sadness is. That is the trouble with the monotheistic faiths, IMO. The reliance on good V bad. There is no way to understand good without a complete understanding of what bad is as well. Its like having light but having no darkness. There has to be balance. That is what enlightenment is about, among other things. As for the person choosing to stay in the Bardo state, again, it is not something I would choose so I can't really speculate on that. I want to complete my journey and remaining there would be counterproductive to that.

 

[JoStories]

Do you have any idea how broad Christianity is? Do you understand the many "saved by grace" debates that are had almost daily between Christians? Do you know which side of the camp I fall into? Do you know my denomination? If your answer to any of these questions is know then you will understand what a big mistake it is to assume what my "faith" professes about how people obtain salvation.

To put it simply this is what my faith believes:

3 We believe that through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel.

4 We believe that the first principles and ordinances of the Gospel are: first, Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; second,Repentance; third, Baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; fourth, Laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost.​

We also believe we are "saved by grace, after all we can do".

​

Of course I understand the many types of your faith Thanda. I studied this for decades. But by your own remarks here, that man in prison would be going to heaven and that is something I simply cannot understand. A murderer gets a free pass because he decides after the fact that Christ is his Lord? I don't doubt that he was sincere. That is not the issue. The issue is that your Bible sets forth certain rules that should never be broken and this man broke them all. And yet despite that, he still gets to heaven? But someone like Gandhi goes to hell? At best that seems capricious.

 

[JoStories]

I think what Muhammed was getting at was hypocrisy. What ever you do must proceed from your heart for it to be of any value to you. A man may do many good things - but if he does them to be seen by others then his actions, though good on face value, will actually turn out to be evil. Good and evil are not states of doing - they are states of being.

I disagree. Good and evil are two sides of a very fine concept. Without good, how does one know what evil is? And vice versa. That is what makes me more drawn to the eastern faiths, there is no reliance on this dichotomous mindset. Its more about understanding that good and evil do exist and that one has to live their lives making sure they understand that and walk the fine balance. What may be good for some might be considered evil for others. ISIS thinks they are doing good. Would you concur with that? With the beheadings and such? I certainly wouldn't.

 

[JoStories]

how do you know god is the one in the bible and qur'an?
Maybe the true god was the god of the australian aboriginals, we killed them, we pissed him, we're on the same boat and we'll spende eternity in hell.
Maybe since he is all knowing he know that one day this would happen and maybe he produced in the past the Qur'an and the Bible to trick us into believing in false gods so we can end up in hell cause he don't want us in his heaven with him.
Now, because he is the true god he can produce Qur'an and Bible in such a way that you won't be able to tell they're fake. So you can't disprove my theory pointing to the supposed "perfection of the Qur'an" because according to my theory the "perfection of the Qur'an" is a proof that the aboriginal god exists and is the best prankster in the universe.
How can you prove you're right and i'm wrong. Well you can't.
Yet you feel morally superior than me. that's all your wisdom in a nutshell. You think i'm crazy cause "i know better than god" and never realize you may be crazy cause you claim "to know god" while in fact you don't and can't know nothing. That's why what you do is called "faith" cause it can be true only as long as you believe it is.

Then according to your own words here, we are at an impasse. You cannot prove them wrong and they cannot prove that they are right. So who do we believe? You? Because you find the dogma of all faiths to be restricting and trivial or Them? Because the rules of those faiths favor society, such as not killing or stealing? Leave the conundrum about heaven or hell out of this as not all faiths have those concepts. Is this simply about the people of faith seemingly feeling superior to you for your choice to be an atheist? I would ask you why that bothers you if you truly believe them to be following pie in the sky beliefs. Why do you care? If they are deluded it would have no effect on you and we are all truly just food for worms. Again, why do you care what they think?

 

[JoStories]

That may sound logical, but it does not necessarily follow. It is possible that in addition to being just, God is also fair. And if he is then he wouldn't punish someone for doing something they honestly thought was right.

But that does necessarily track. One of the commandments is thou shalt not kill. There is no other way of viewing that. Yet ISIS members believe that they are doing as Allah wishes by murdering. A direct opposite to that commandment. So who is right here? Either God wrote that commandment and does not want killing or God didn't and God will accept the members of ISIS into heaven despite them having broken that rule.

 

[Thanda]

Of course I understand the many types of your faith Thanda. I studied this for decades. But by your own remarks here, that man in prison would be going to heaven and that is something I simply cannot understand. A murderer gets a free pass because he decides after the fact that Christ is his Lord? I don't doubt that he was sincere. That is not the issue. The issue is that your Bible sets forth certain rules that should never be broken and this man broke them all. And yet despite that, he still gets to heaven? But someone like Gandhi goes to hell? At best that seems capricious.

Jo, now I don't really know what to say to you anymore. Who said Ghandi is going to hell?

Secondly what do you want to happen with murderers? Do you want me to say they have no chance of going into heaven? Do you want me to say they have no hope? Of course they do. We are all God's children and he loves every one of us. That is what the point of the story of the Prodigal Son was all about. God is happy with those who are doing good all the time. But he cares also for those who are struggling. That man in prison, if he is sincere, has began his process of recovery. It will be a long journey but with God's help he will become every bit as righteous as Ghandi, Mandela or whoever else lived a good life. And if Ghandi, in his pride perhaps, thinks he are so righteous that he does not need God's help, then he will fall behind and that murderer you now see behind bars will become more righteous than him.

The point is everyone will get every opportunity to qualify for heaven. It is not for you and I to judge which people have done too much evil to allowed in there. Doing so is being like the pharisees. The pharisees, some of them, didn't commit some of the sins that others were guilty of. However they also had no faith in God. This meant their potential only reached as far as their ability. And since the ability of any person falls short of God's perfection, if they rely only on themselves they will make the grade required to enter heaven.

 

[Thanda]

I disagree. Good and evil are two sides of a very fine concept. Without good, how does one know what evil is? And vice versa. That is what makes me more drawn to the eastern faiths, there is no reliance on this dichotomous mindset. Its more about understanding that good and evil do exist and that one has to live their lives making sure they understand that and walk the fine balance. What may be good for some might be considered evil for others. ISIS thinks they are doing good. Would you concur with that? With the beheadings and such? I certainly wouldn't.

Firstly, understanding good and evil and doing good or evil (being good or evil) are two different things. God understands very well the difference between good and evil. However he never does, thinks or says anything evil. It would be erroneous to believe that in order to comprehend evil you have to do it. Evil is nothing more than the absence good; it is making a choice that is less than the best under the circumstances. So God is always aware of evil and he always avoids it. So while God is well aware of the evil that is all around him, there is no evil inside him.

There are two stages of righteousness. The first stage is having an understanding of good and evil (The story of Adam and Eve in the garden comes to mind). The second stage is making a choice between the two. Everyone will have, to some degree or another, an opportunity to experience the first stage. But it is the second stage that sets people apart as being righteous or evil.

Lastly, I think you know as well as i do that the stated beliefs of a certain group and their actual beliefs are not the same. Those who join ISIS do so for a wide variety of reasons, not merely because they believe they are serving Allah. But God will judge - he knows people's heart and he knows how much knowledge they had access to when they made their decisions.

 

[Thanda]

But that does necessarily track. One of the commandments is thou shalt not kill. There is no other way of viewing that. Yet ISIS members believe that they are doing as Allah wishes by murdering. A direct opposite to that commandment. So who is right here? Either God wrote that commandment and does not want killing or God didn't and God will accept the members of ISIS into heaven despite them having broken that rule.

Would it make you happy if God punished people for doing things they honestly thought were right? Take Paul of the Bible for example. He honestly thought Christians were heretics and that he was doing God a service by having them jailed. What was God's response? Did he send him to hell? No, he appeared to him and helped him understand what he was doing was wrong. Immediately after that Paul forsook his old ways and did that which had now been shown to him to be right.

 

[Nurion]

Firstly, understanding good and evil and doing good or evil (being good or evil) are two different things. God understands very well the difference between good and evil. However he never does, thinks or says anything evil. It would be erroneous to believe that in order to comprehend evil you have to do it. Evil is nothing more than the absence good; it is making a choice that is less than the best under the circumstances. So God is always aware of evil and he always avoids it. So while God is well aware of the evil that is all around him, there is no evil inside him.

There are two stages of righteousness. The first stage is having an understanding of good and evil (The story of Adam and Eve in the garden comes to mind). The second stage is making a choice between the two. Everyone will have, to some degree or another, an opportunity to experience the first stage. But it is the second stage that sets people apart as being righteous or evil.

Lastly, I think you know as well as i do that the stated beliefs of a certain group and their actual beliefs are not the same. Those who join ISIS do so for a wide variety of reasons, not merely because they believe they are serving Allah. But God will judge - he knows people's heart and he knows how much knowledge they had access to when they made their decisions.

Well I don't know about the god never thinks evil. To me that seems weird. If god is omniscient, he knows everything that happens, as well as could happen. Therefore he must know of the evil things he could do, but decides not to do them.
At least that's what I think. To me that someone cannot think evil sounds much like Orwell's 1984 where there are "thoughtcrimes". True goodness stems from being to able to conceive evil, but deciding not to do it instead of being oblivious to its existence since I cannot even think of it.

 

[Thanda]

Well I don't know about the god never thinks evil. To me that seems weird. If god is omniscient, he knows everything that happens, as well as could happen. Therefore he must know of the evil things he could do, but decides not to do them.
At least that's what I think. To me that someone cannot think evil sounds much like Orwell's 1984 where there are "thoughtcrimes". True goodness stems from being to able to conceive evil, but deciding not to do it instead of being oblivious to its existence since I cannot even think of it.

When someone makes fun of you, do you think about killing them?

 

[Nurion]

When someone makes fun of you, do you think about killing them?

Well it would depend on the situation. If it's a friend at the family dinner, of course not. If I were a presidential candidate and my opponent was mocking me with falsehoods, I probably would think about it for a second, before dismissing the thought, yes.

 

[cambridge79]

Then according to your own words here, we are at an impasse. You cannot prove them wrong and they cannot prove that they are right. So who do we believe? You? Because you find the dogma of all faiths to be restricting and trivial or Them?

you don't have to believe anything, that's the point. They make the claim, they can't produce evidences, they should not be believed.
it's the very idea of believing that is trivial. If you can make people believe something that don't exists, than you can make them do things in the name of that something that doesn't exists. That not only is trivial but it becomes dangerous.

Because the rules of those faiths favor society, such as not killing or stealing?

do you really think that is a religion achievement that? Civilization need shared rules to exists and those rules can be derived without religion.
Killers and thieves were punished all around the world even before god felt the need to say so to the jews.
Actually, and thankfully, our laws are mostly derived by secular principles. We don't put people in prison for not believing in god. Yet we put people in prison for killing or stealing because that is harmful to society and other people, not because that offends god.
if we come up to the conclusion that junk food is bad or smoking is bad we don't say "god don't want you to smoke and eat at mcdonalds" like we used 2000 years ago. we explain them that is dangerous and why. Than it's up to them to chose.

I would ask you why that bothers you if you truly believe them to be following pie in the sky beliefs. Why do you care? If they are deluded it would have no effect on you and we are all truly just food for worms. Again, why do you care what they think?

no effect on me? it has all sort of effects on me. I'm an atheist, if i go in saudi arabia and tell it openly i end up in prison. If that evil mentality spreads to my country for example i would be endangered.
if i was a gay person i would not be able to have civil rights because of religions.
If i end up with a cancer i can't cure i can't end my life the way i want because of religions, i would have to suffer like a dog, or jump down a window cause the laws of my county won't let the doctor inject me with a lethal dose of painkillers because that makes the pope sad.
there are idiots in america believing the world is 5000 years old and close to armageddon that actually have the nuclear codes.
And all sorts of things like these.
If religious people would simply decide to keep their things for themselves as something to apply to their own lives i would be happy of that. But that's not the world i live in.

 

[Thanda]

Well it would depend on the situation. If it's a friend at the family dinner, of course not. If I were a presidential candidate and my opponent was mocking me with falsehoods, I probably would think about it for a second, before dismissing the thought, yes.

The very fact that there is a scenario where you might not think about it is sufficient to prove to you that evil thoughts are no automatic. There are some who would never think about killing someone no matter the offence committed against them. So don't presume that because you have evil thoughts going through your mind all the time that everyone does - especially don't assume that God does.

 

[Nurion]

The very fact that there is a scenario where you might not think about it is sufficient to prove to you that evil thoughts are no automatic. There are some who would never think about killing someone no matter the offence committed against them. So don't presume that because you have evil thoughts going through your mind all the time that everyone does - especially don't assume that God does.

You are right, evil thoughts are not automatic, but this does not prove in the slightest, that someone is incapable of evil thoughts.
To be able to judge wether an action is evil before it is done, I must have knowledge of what the result of said action would be. To know that, I need to know that my actions influence others. And to know that I need to be able to think about my actions, or the actions of others. Only then can I form a judgement wether an action is good or evil. Since inherently, no action is good or evil. If something is done, it simply "happened". It is only through us judging that action that we can say that it was good or evil or neither.
The same could be said for God. Maybe he thinks about doing something hurtful to a person, to set said person on the right path. Wether he actually would do it, I don't know.

 

[cambridge79]

especially don't assume that God does.

expecially if you rig the game assuming that everything he does must be good by definition. For example the god of the bible wiped out all humankind except noah's family, obliterated two cities, killed all the male childrens in egypt just to name some, but somehow he did all of that cause he is good and he loves us.

 

[Thanda]

expecially if you rig the game assuming that everything he does must be good by definition. For example the god of the bible wiped out all humankind except noah's family, obliterated two cities, killed all the male child in egypt just to name some, but somehow he did all of that cause he is good and he loves us.

You're getting the hang of this. Well done!

 

[Thanda]

You are right, evil thoughts are not automatic, but this does not prove in the slightest, that someone is incapable of evil thoughts.
To be able to judge wether an action is evil before it is done, I must have knowledge of what the result of said action would be. To know that, I need to know that my actions influence others. And to know that I need to be able to think about my actions, or the actions of others. Only then can I form a judgement wether an action is good or evil. Since inherently, no action is good or evil. If something is done, it simply "happened". It is only through us judging that action that we can say that it was good or evil or neither.
The same could be said for God. Maybe he thinks about doing something hurtful to a person, to set said person on the right path. Wether he actually would do it, I don't know.

Doing something hurtful and doing something evil are two different things. For God, the ends always justify the means. This is because he is able to see the end of all actions. And you are right, an action on its own is neither good nor evil. It is the consequences (all the consequences for eternity) that determine whether an action is evil or not. So for a given scenario, in order to determine good or evil, every consequence of every option must be considered. The option with the most positive impact or the least negative impact (depending on how you want to look at it) is the right option. Any other option is evil.

That is why it is not enough to simply follow the Ten Commandments like a zombie. You need to be in constant communion with God so you can know when an action that is usually good, is not good for the particular situation you find yourself in.

 

[Nurion]

Doing something hurtful and doing something evil are two different things. For God, the ends always justify the means. This is because he is able to see the end of all actions. And you are right, an action on its own is neither good nor evil. It is the consequences (all the consequences for eternity) that determine whether an action is evil or not. So for a given scenario, in order to determine good or evil, every consequence of every option must be considered. The option with the most positive impact or the least negative impact (depending on how you want to look at it) is the right option. Any other option is evil.

That is why it is not enough to simply follow the Ten Commandments like a zombie. You need to be in constant communion with God so you can know when an action that is usually good, is not good for the particular situation you find yourself in.

Well I don't think it is as easy as that. If there were just one solution to any given problem, we'd sure have a lot less trouble in our lives. It is precisely because there are many solutions that yield equally good results, that we often find ourselves stuck on solving problems.

Also I think you just agreed to my point of God being able to think and do evil. Since you agreed that the option with the most positive impact and least negative impact (in short, the option that is the closest to the golden rule) would be the best option. Wouldn't you agree then, that God is capable and willing to cause harm (evil) to a being if this leads to the best scenario in the end?
Or is he unable to lead us to the best scenario, since he is unable of even causing harm to a person for the greater good, i.e. he can only perform actions or think of possibilities that do not require any person to get hurt in the first place?