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

[Thanda]

However, your example only speaks of people who are ignorant. What of those with the ability to choose freely and in choosing, reject the Christian view of God? I have been told over and over by well meaning people that because of my choice, I'm going to hell. And certain verses back me up on this...examples are John 14; 6 and Acts 4; 12. Also refer to John 3;3, 2nd Thessalonians 1; 8-9, but perhaps most telling is John 3;18.

“Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.”

There is very little way to misinterpret this verse.

Well it is not for me to judge you on how well God has been explained to you. But yes, obviously if you reject the true God (and assuming the true God is the Christian God) then you will surely not make it into heaven. That is not a hard conclusion to draw. Similarly, if I I were to gain a good understanding of Buddhism and yet conclude that it is not a good ideology then when I die I will obviously never reach my enlightenment. This is basic. If you don't like Christ and what he is about and he is the God of this world then you will not, when you die, go and live with the person you don't like.

And the verse you have quoted is perfect. Those who believe (truly believe-with works) in Christ are not condemned because they will eventually attain perfection as Christ commanded them to do. Those who do not are condemned to mediocrity at best since without Christ they cannot gain perfection.

 

[Thanda]

Yet, no one can be perfect. Its impossible. I have studied your three levels of attainment, which I find interesting. For me, they mirror some of the teachings of the levels of the Tree of Life from the Kabbalah. Malkuth is the lowest and mirrors what you call Telestial. These notions also can be compared to enlightenment, in a much more general way of course. Very interesting stuff, that. But back to being perfect, no one can be. Mistakes are a part of life. Some mistakes are grievous, some not so much. Also, consider that you say that these lower kingdoms are the result of suffering for sins. Note how that can be viewed from the POV of the Bardo state. My dissertation focused on the parallels between all faiths, albeit in terms of mysticism but it was fascinating and there were clear parallels to be found.

What is so impossible about being perfect? As for mistakes, well that is another thing. A mistake can be leaving home late and missing a meeting. But incorrect moral choices when you have sufficient understanding is a sin, not a mistake. And God has never said he will save us from mistakes; but he has said he will save us from sin - if we believe.

 

[cambridge79]

You're correct, we can't know the future but we can study the past to see the mistakes made and try to make a better choice. You are firmly against all faiths. That is very clear. Again, however, shall we demand that we all, all peoples, hold to your atheistic views on your say so? The faith of Islam is evolving and the parallels to the Christian faith of 500 years ago are quite clear. A cursory study would make that clear. What do you suggest here? Jail all YEC? Enact 1984? How? Please lay out your plans to rid the world of all faiths. I would love to know how you would do that.

i'm not against all faiths in the sense that i don't want to force my view over people. i'm intellectually against religions, yes, but not socially.
I'm for secularism. As long as secularism is guaranteed i would let anyone free to believe whatever he wants to believe. That yes is a principle i would want to be in place.
The idea that blasphemy laws still exists and the idea that something is forced on me in order to please a god i don't believe in first place, that i will fight against it with all my strenght.
Take god out of the schools, the courts, the town halls and my life and for me you can believe even that spongebob is god if that makes you feel better. I'm no stalin and i think the way stalin intended atheism was absolutely a bad choice and nothing i would like to see implemented in my country.

i'll reply to the other things in another moment i'm in a hurry now.

p.s.
sorry i hadn't read about the fact you were blind, of course if you do that for such a valid reason it's not a problem at all

 

[viole]

Well it's clear you're against the word evil. By my definition, a good person is someone who is committed to doing what they believe to be right. A person who cannot tell what is right or wrong is neither good nor evil, they cannot be judged. An evil person is someone who is not committed to doing what they believe is right. There are of course varying degrees of evil. That is why in my particular faith (I've tried not to complicate things so far) there is something called the three degrees of glory: the Celestial, Terrestrial and Telestial. The celestial is the highest and the telestial is the lowest kingdom of glory (or reward) a person may obtain (not entirely true, a person may receive no kingdom of glory, and they will go to a place called outer darkness). Those who don't live to the highest standard will inherit the lower kingdoms after (for some of them) suffering a time for their sins. (For more of this your can refer to Doctrine and Covenants 76 and 88 - Mormon scripture)

However the Lord has purposely not spent a lot of time talking about these lower kingdoms because that is not really what he wants us to reach for. And that is why the scriptures have been written as a heaven and hell kind of contrast. But be assured, God does understand that people have many shades grey and are not just black and white - but to obtain eternal life, the greatest of the gifts of God, you must be perfect. The atonement of Jesus Christ assists us to do that.

I don't think it is possible to be perfect if you are not perfect to start with. Symmetrically, i don't think it is possible to have been perfect if we lose our perfection. So, it does not make any sense to say that Adam has been created perfect, for instance.

The reason is similar to the ontological argument. If X is not perfect, but becomes perfect, then I can imagine an even more perfect being Y that was never imperfect in the past. Ergo, X cannot be less perfect than Y without losing the attribute of perfection altogether.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Thanda]

I don't think it is possible to be perfect if you are not perfect to start with. Symmetrically, i don't think it is possible to have been perfect if we lose our perfection. So, it does not make any sense to say that Adam has been created perfect, for instance.

The reason is similar to the ontological argument. If X is not perfect, but becomes perfect, then I can imagine an even more perfect being Y that was never imperfect in the past. Ergo, X cannot be less perfect than Y without losing the attribute of perfection altogether.

Ciao

- viole

But perfection is not a historical progression. It is a state of being. At any one point in time something is either perfect or it is not. Therefore suppose 10 is perfection. Now suppose, per your example, X = 3 and Y = 10 at time t = 0. Then suppose X undergoes a transformation so that so that at time t = 1 it now equals 10 while Y remains unchanged. In that case X = Y regardless of the fact that X was once not equal to 10.

 

[viole]

But perfection is not a historical progression. It is a state of being. At any one point in time something is either perfect or it is not. Therefore suppose 10 is perfection. Now suppose, per your example, X = 3 and Y = 10 at time t = 0. Then suppose X undergoes a transformation so that so that at time t = 1 it now equals 10 while Y remains unchanged. In that case X = Y regardless of the fact that X was once not equal to 10.

Yes, I see what you say. But if you are right, that comes at a steep price. It actually annihilates arguments based on the ontological argument . Or any other arguments that uses the smallest majorative to make a point. For instance, we cannot assume anymore that God existed forever, for He could still be perfect if starts existing in this state today.

Ergo, the price is that perfection is time dependent. Which I think it is problematic. For what prevents perfect beings, because of jesus and all, to revert to their state of imperfection?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Thanda]

Yes, I see what you say. But if you are right, that comes at a steep price. It actually annihilates arguments based on the ontological argument . Or any other arguments that uses the smallest majorative to make a point. For instance, we cannot assume anymore that God existed forever, for He could still be perfect if starts existing in this state today.

Ergo, the price is that perfection is time dependent. Which I think it is problematic. For what prevents perfect beings, because of jesus and all, to revert to their state of imperfection?

Ciao

- viole

An interesting question. I believe there are principles that exist in the universe that are independent of God. These principles cannot be changed - they are without beginning or end. Taken together these principles define what we call truth. Note the following scripture from Doctrine and Covenants (lds scripture) 1:39:

For behold, and lo, the Lord is God, and the Spirit beareth record, and the record is true, and the truth abideth forever and ever. Amen.​

Truth is as eternal as God. God abides by the truth and the truth abides in him. And because of this, God is simultaneously the most powerful being in existence as well as the happiest.

And it is the happiness the truth brings that guarantee that those who attain to it, are enveloped by it and are filled with it; it is this truth that ensures they will never depart from it. And because, through the truth they become the most powerful beings in existence, there is no being who can ever force them to change. And if they never wish to change, and no one can ever force them to change, then they become unchangeable. They become eternally perfect.

 

[JoStories]

Well it is not for me to judge you on how well God has been explained to you. But yes, obviously if you reject the true God (and assuming the true God is the Christian God) then you will surely not make it into heaven. That is not a hard conclusion to draw. Similarly, if I I were to gain a good understanding of Buddhism and yet conclude that it is not a good ideology then when I die I will obviously never reach my enlightenment. This is basic. If you don't like Christ and what he is about and he is the God of this world then you will not, when you die, go and live with the person you don't like.

And the verse you have quoted is perfect. Those who believe (truly believe-with works) in Christ are not condemned because they will eventually attain perfection as Christ commanded them to do. Those who do not are condemned to mediocrity at best since without Christ they cannot gain perfection.

I guess I have not made it clear that actually, I enjoy the teachings of Christ very much. I particularly like the Sermon on the Mount. Matthew Fox wrote a book on that that I highly recommend. My problem comes with Paulian dogma. If Paul and his ideas were left out of the Bible, I might still be a Christian. But since most rely heavily on his ideals, I cannot do that as, IMO, it is NOT what Christ taught at all. As for God, many Buddhists don't believe in God. I do. And having studied theology for so long, I believe I have a pretty good understanding of God. That understanding is built on academia but more importantly, on personal experience with God. Yet, the exclusive nature of the Christian faith is another reason I cannot be a part of it. God is big enough to be able to have many faces. For the Hindu, it might be Kali, or Surya. For a Pagan, God might be Artemis or Diana, etc. When the Christian faith states that it is only through accepting Christ and your paternal version of God that one gets to this nirvana, I have a problem with that. It limits God and I, for one, don't believe I am wise enough to be able to limit God at all.

 

[JoStories]

What is so impossible about being perfect? As for mistakes, well that is another thing. A mistake can be leaving home late and missing a meeting. But incorrect moral choices when you have sufficient understanding is a sin, not a mistake. And God has never said he will save us from mistakes; but he has said he will save us from sin - if we believe.

So this Chinese Hitman I mentioned should, by your remarks here, go to hell, non? But he absolutely believed he was going to heaven. And his ascertains of this were adamant. So again, if that is true, one could break all the commandments up to the point of dying and still be accepted into heaven. That is what I have a problem with. And also because I would be sent to hell, based on the Bible, yet I have never done anything as heinous as this man. Some stupid things, yes. And I paid for those. Acceptance into heaven then becomes very much like a country club with exclusive rules for admittance.

 

[JoStories]

i'm not against all faiths in the sense that i don't want to force my view over people. i'm intellectually against religions, yes, but not socially.
I'm for secularism. As long as secularism is guaranteed i would let anyone free to believe whatever he wants to believe. That yes is a principle i would want to be in place.
The idea that blasphemy laws still exists and the idea that something is forced on me in order to please a god i don't believe in first place, that i will fight against it with all my strenght.
Take god out of the schools, the courts, the town halls and my life and for me you can believe even that spongebob is god if that makes you feel better. I'm no stalin and i think the way stalin intended atheism was absolutely a bad choice and nothing i would like to see implemented in my country.

i'll reply to the other things in another moment i'm in a hurry now.

p.s.
sorry i hadn't read about the fact you were blind, of course if you do that for such a valid reason it's not a problem at all

Thank you for the PS note.
You want a secular government but even here in America, where it is supposed to be secular, it is far from it. Our founding fathers tried for secularism but unfortunately, too many have stuck their religious views into our practices. It was not until Roe V Wade that a woman could get an abortion. It was not until a very short time ago that gays could marry and have joint partnership. Our justice system still has God in the buildings. (In God we trust). There was a clerk in Kentucky who refused to hand out marriage licenses based on being gay. And she got tons of support for this from right wing pundits. And that despite being against what the SCOTUS had ruled. You might like this idea but as I said, even here, we are far from it.

 

[Thanda]

So this Chinese Hitman I mentioned should, by your remarks here, go to hell, non? But he absolutely believed he was going to heaven. And his ascertains of this were adamant. So again, if that is true, one could break all the commandments up to the point of dying and still be accepted into heaven. That is what I have a problem with. And also because I would be sent to hell, based on the Bible, yet I have never done anything as heinous as this man. Some stupid things, yes. And I paid for those. Acceptance into heaven then becomes very much like a country club with exclusive rules for admittance.

How did you draw this conclusion (about the Chinese Hitman going into heaven) from what I have said?

Again the Bible didn't say you're going to hell. It said without Christ you will go to hell. And again I tell you that when we die and go to the other side, we will all meet one God. Whether it is Allah, Jehovah, your God, Krishna or whom ever might be the true God. So if you find that the true God is the God of Jesus Christ and you still reject him (perhaps because you don't like the fact that he is a man and you don't like that he has commandments) then you will surely go to hell. Indeed, where else could you go if you don't go to the Kingdom of God?

I'm not guaranteeing you that you will go into heaven. I just don't know. You know why you have rejected Jesus Christ - and God knows even better. Whether you are justified in rejecting him (on the basis of what other people are saying about him) will be decided by God. All that is important for you is that you (and me) are sure of your decision - for you will live or die by it.

 

[cambridge79]

Thank you for the PS note.
You want a secular government but even here in America, where it is supposed to be secular, it is far from it. Our founding fathers tried for secularism but unfortunately, too many have stuck their religious views into our practices. It was not until Roe V Wade that a woman could get an abortion. It was not until a very short time ago that gays could marry and have joint partnership. Our justice system still has God in the buildings. (In God we trust). There was a clerk in Kentucky who refused to hand out marriage licenses based on being gay. And she got tons of support for this from right wing pundits. And that despite being against what the SCOTUS had ruled. You might like this idea but as I said, even here, we are far from it.

i know, that's because i think is in their own interest that so called "moderate believers" join us atheists or agnostics in asking for true secularism and i would gladly stand side by side with a believere for this common goal because this would make both our lives better. He can live according to his laws, i can live according to mine and both we would be protected by rights given by secularism. Unfortunately many believers ( i can't personally quantify the percentage ) think its part of their duty to proselitize and to shape society according to their values forcing them on anyone. those are the ones i will always stand against.

what's the difference for example in being racists against blacks and discriminate homosexuals? fact is, we can't tolerate no more racism in every shape or form. If a public figure says something against blacks he is dead. You say the n-word on tv you're out. While for hate against homosexuals many people feel that "because is god related it can be tolerated". wich is foolish at best. They're also cowards and hypocrite because they hide their personal hate behind the shield of god.

and this is not even something that directly involves me cause i'm eterosexual. But as i said for example the idea that i can't request for a injection when diagnosed with a terminal disease because that would upset a god that i don't believe in, that's again foolish. we are so compassionate that we give injections to dogs cause we don't want them to suffer, yet we can't have that right for us, we can't decide of our own lives because the invisible friends of someone else apparently enjoy torturing us. I simply won't stand this. if i'll ever been diagnosed with a terminal cancer i'll jump down a window trying to land on the head of one of those people i'm talkin about.

 

[viole]

An interesting question. I believe there are principles that exist in the universe that are independent of God. These principles cannot be changed - they are without beginning or end. Taken together these principles define what we call truth. Note the following scripture from Doctrine and Covenants (lds scripture) 1:39:

For behold, and lo, the Lord is God, and the Spirit beareth record, and the record is true, and the truth abideth forever and ever. Amen.

​

​

Yes, but that does no offer any guarantee that we will rebel again. I think we have Biblical evidence that you can rebel even if you know God exists and you speak with Him every day. I don't know. i can imagine that after a few thousands of billions of years of truth, I might consider rocking the boat a little bit. Just to see what happens.

Truth is as eternal as God.

Which is obviously true, if God is truth. By definition.

God abides by the truth and the truth abides in him. And because of this, God is simultaneously the most powerful being in existence as well as the happiest.

The happiest? Do you think God is emotional?

And it is the happiness the truth brings that guarantee that those who attain to it, are enveloped by it and are filled with it; it is this truth that ensures they will never depart from it. And because, through the truth they become the most powerful beings in existence, there is no being who can ever force them to change. And if they never wish to change, and no one can ever force them to change, then they become unchangeable. They become eternally perfect.

If they become the most powerful beings, then there will be several Gods. By the way, it is impossible to have two beings each one being more powerful than the other.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Thanda]

Yes, but that does no offer any guarantee that we will rebel again. I think we have Biblical evidence that you can rebel even if you know God exists and you speak with Him every day. I don't know. i can imagine that after a few thousands of billions of years of truth, I might consider rocking the boat a little bit. Just to see what happens.

I doubt it.

The happiest? Do you think God is emotional?

Certainly, he gets jealous, angry and he has love. Those are all passions. I do not believe in a God without passions - he might as well be a robot.

If they become the most powerful beings, then there will be several Gods. By the way, it is impossible to have two beings each one being more powerful than the other.

Precisely. As it is written in Doctrine & Covenants 132:

20 Then shall they be gods, because they have no end; therefore shall they be from everlasting to everlasting, because they continue; then shall they be above all, because all things are subject unto them. Then shall they be gods, because they have all power, and the angels are subject unto them.​

 

[JoStories]

Certainly, he gets jealous, angry and he has love. Those are all passions. I do not believe in a God without passions - he might as well be a robot.

I disagree Thanda. You have no idea, in truth, that God has emotions. And IMO, the application of emotions to God is merely humankind trying to 'fit' the concept of God into parameters that the common person can understand. We simply cannot know this side of death if God truly has emotions, and that is being stated only from your faith's POV. From mine, God is the goal of my striving for enlightenment. For me, God is more an energy type of being but that, too, is my own way of understanding God through the limited capacity of my mind. I agree the God of the Bible is portrayed as being an emotive being but that was written by men and could merely have been those men trying to couch a concept into human terms.

 

[serp777]

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?

Ridiculous. How do you know God doesn't drag people there unwillingly? Who is willing to be tortured for eternity? I mean nobody is that much of a masochist. I'm sure Hitler was willing enough to avoid eternal hellfire. Does hitler still go to hell even if he is unwilling?

And you know where else you could go? Some kind of neutral ground, or perhaps reincarnation, or perhaps no existence. I mean you're creating a false dilemma--it has to be heaven or hell. No it doesn't. Everything in your post is so wrong.

 

[JoStories]

How did you draw this conclusion (about the Chinese Hitman going into heaven) from what I have said?

Again the Bible didn't say you're going to hell. It said without Christ you will go to hell. And again I tell you that when we die and go to the other side, we will all meet one God. Whether it is Allah, Jehovah, your God, Krishna or whom ever might be the true God. So if you find that the true God is the God of Jesus Christ and you still reject him (perhaps because you don't like the fact that he is a man and you don't like that he has commandments) then you will surely go to hell. Indeed, where else could you go if you don't go to the Kingdom of God?

I'm not guaranteeing you that you will go into heaven. I just don't know. You know why you have rejected Jesus Christ - and God knows even better. Whether you are justified in rejecting him (on the basis of what other people are saying about him) will be decided by God. All that is important for you is that you (and me) are sure of your decision - for you will live or die by it.

Thing is Thanda, I do believe in God. I just cannot accept a middle man as being necessary to my understanding of God. And IMO, that is how I see Christ. If this man did truly exist and, further, if this man was truly God incarnate, there would still have been more proof of this. We (theologians) cannot find enough historical data to concur the Jesus even lived, let alone was the Son of God. I believe this man was a lot like The Buddha; a very good teacher who was further along on their path to enlightenment. A lot like the two monks who taught Helena Blavatsky who founded Theosophy. IOW, prophets. You state above that if one rejects Jesus, The Christ, you dont know if they go to heaven. I find that exclusivity to the Christian faith rather off putting, no offense intended. If a Hindu follows their faith to the letter, as Gandhi did, why would God condemn such a person to hell for believing in Kali or Krishna instead of Jesus Christ? It makes no sense to me.

 

[psychoslice]

Its great that hell is only an imagination of someone's fear, its, well to me personally very childish and has done nothing but harm to the ignorant human race.

 

[Thanda]

I disagree Thanda. You have no idea, in truth, that God has emotions. And IMO, the application of emotions to God is merely humankind trying to 'fit' the concept of God into parameters that the common person can understand. We simply cannot know this side of death if God truly has emotions, and that is being stated only from your faith's POV. From mine, God is the goal of my striving for enlightenment. For me, God is more an energy type of being but that, too, is my own way of understanding God through the limited capacity of my mind. I agree the God of the Bible is portrayed as being an emotive being but that was written by men and could merely have been those men trying to couch a concept into human terms.

Well emotions are concepts aren't they? When a person acts in a particular way, with a particular look on their face as they do it, we say they are angry. It is just a name we give when a person decides to act in a certain way. So even if no one can really know what God feels we are just as justified in ascribing or naming his actions under certain circumstances as we are to name our own actions under certain circumstances.

But as for me I believe God does have emotions. I belief the Bible to be the word of God so when someone in the Bible say God said "ABC" I believe God did say that. And God did say to Moses that He is a jealous God. And he told other prophets that he is angry. And Jesus said, "If ye have seen me, ye have seen the father". And Jesus was compassionate (he even cried) - which tells me God is compassionate too. I have also felt God's compassion and love for me. My God is not passionless.

 

[JoStories]

Ridiculous. How do you know God doesn't drag people there unwillingly? Who is willing to be tortured for eternity? I mean nobody is that much of a masochist. I'm sure Hitler was willing enough to avoid eternal hellfire. Does hitler still go to hell even if he is unwilling?

And you know where else you could go? Some kind of neutral ground, or perhaps reincarnation, or perhaps no existence. I mean you're creating a false dilemma--it has to be heaven or hell. No it doesn't. Everything in your post is so wrong.

I think that is a bit harsh. For you, Thanda's post is wrong. But it is about belief and faith and faith is defined as that which one believes in the absence of proof. For you, this is ridiculous, to use your terms but for Thanda, it fits her belief. Its not wrong, its just her belief. Are you really willing to say that anyone who has the temerity to disagree with your mindset is wrong? That borders on 1984 and the Thought Police.