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

[Useless2015]

"And angels shall come forth and sever the wicked from among the just"
It is obvious that wickedness is when you hurt other people. The just are the ones who defend and love other people and fight for justice.

I hate to burst your bubble but being an unbeliever is an actual sin. In the Bible it falls under the 'wickedness'.



8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.

 

[DLR]

"And angels shall come forth and sever the wicked from among the just"
It is obvious that wickedness is when you hurt other people. The just are the ones who defend and love other people and fight for justice.

Seriously, I've never heard of a passage in the Bible where it says: angels will sever the non-believers from the believers

I think the gospels are very clear in stating what is required to be saved. Defining "wicked" requires a bit more subjectivity IMO.

 

[DLR]

Don't you think it's irresponsible to evangelize to people without having a clear answer in the first place?

If you think I am evangelizing here then you are entitled to that opinion. Any answer I give you will not be considered a clear answer but just my opinion in any event.

 

[Thanda]

Which entails that only crazy people will go to hell. Namely the ones who insist to not believe in God even when they are in front of Him. I am pretty sure that if I find myself at the pearly gates after my death, I will convert immediately. Who wouldn't?

That would entail also that hell is more like an eternal psychiatric ward

This doesn't make sense. People who go to hell are those who do are not moral according to God's standards. It has nothing to do with whether you accept God exists or not. The devil knows God exists but he is not exactly living it up in heaven.

At the end of the day, who is more likely to go to Heaven? The ones who knew about Jesus or the one who did not? (keeping all other variables constant).

Keeping all other variables constant obviously the one who knew about him.

If someone ought to know that sleeping with a woman against her will is wrong even without God, what do we need God for?

This is an odd question. God has given us a lot of built in knowledge. But clearly he hasn't given us everything. Just because we have some knowledge of morality built into our understandings doesn't mean we don't need the other knowledge God wants to reveal to us.

And who is more moral, someone who knows it wthout God or someone that has been reminded or confirmed by God that it is wrong?

Neither. It depends what they do with that knowledge.

You seem to admit that God knowledge is useless. And if it is not useless, what advantages does it bring to the ones who possess it?

I certainly have admitted nothing of the sort. Remember salvation is not a competition. Whether one converts today or tomorrow will not really matter a billion years from now.

Yet, if someone preaches me the Gospel after I am dead, I expect to have a higher chance to believe him. Wouldn't you?
Which still gives me a great advantage if I never received while being alive.

Again your problem is misunderstanding the meaning of the word believe. A person who truly believes will change their lives accordingly. To see how little correlation there is between merely admitting that something is true and truly believing take a look at smokers. There is ample evidence given to them that what they are doing is harmful both to them and others - yet many continue. Change (or repentance, as we refer to it in the gospel) is a classic example of easier said than done.

And it is true that who potentially accepts the gospel will accept it even without having heard it (and vice versa) then it is useless to spread the gospel to start with. Some missionaries risked their lives to spread the Gospel. What were their rational motivations, if any?

It was not useless. It is moral if you have something good to want to share it. No one can come to know the goodness of God and purposely fail to share it with others without losing their morality.

 

[Useless2015]

-----------

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If you think I am evangelizing here then you are entitled to that opinion. Any answer I give you will not be considered a clear answer but just my opinion in any event.

Sorry - I was unclear: you talked about how your denomination engages in missionary work. I'm saying that it would be irresponsible to do that if they haven't put some serious thought into whether they're damning people with their actions. If it's still an open question (and if we assume that there really is a god going around damning people), then aren't their actions reckless?

Edit: I didn't mean to suggest that you're evangelizing in this thread.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

This doesn't make sense. People who go to hell are those who do are not moral according to God's standards. It has nothing to do with whether you accept God exists or not. The devil knows God exists but he is not exactly living it up in heaven.

Wait a minute: I've been told by more than one Christian that human beings are incapable of living up to God's standard... hence the need for Christ. Do you disagree?

 

[Debater Slayer]

So, I checked to see who voted for the "Non-believer's fault" option, and I saw that three out of the four people who voted for it are conservative Muslims. The saddest thing about that is that I'm not surprised; I expected something like that before viewing the poll results.

But let's talk some more about how everyone in the evil media is "distorting the image of true Islam," please.

I digress. That's all I have to say about the (unfortunate) poll results for now.

 

[Thanda]

Wait a minute: I've been told by more than one Christian that human beings are incapable of living up to God's standard... hence the need for Christ. Do you disagree?

Yes humans can't live up to God's standard without Christ's help. That is true.

 

[viole]

God didn't sacrifice his son, we murdered Yeshua, as we perceived that was what was meant to happen, and in the process, defiled lots of laws.....So according to the prophets, Christianity is there to catch out all the workers of iniquity in one go.

The people saved according to Yeshua are the ones following his teachings, which state people are judged by their works, and character, not from a belief, as the Pharisees (John, Paul and Simon the stone[petros]) made up after.

I think we cannot assume that "we" acted immorally by sacrificing Jesus (assuming that the death penalty is not immoral as I believe it is).

If Jesus was what He claimed to be, He would not stay dead long and His "death" would cleanse sins, as a bonus. If He was not, then He was a liar, deserving the punishement

Ciao

- viole

 

[wizanda]

What church do you belong to?

Christianity is the mother of all harlots prophesied in the Bible, so why would i join a church going the wrong way.

This seems to be a Christian sectarian dispute.

Award winning theologians, and noble prize winners are aware of the contradictions; Christianity is established on the false bits, so its hardly an internal dispute.

To me in the Bible it clearly says that non-believers will be thrown in a lake of fire forever.

Revelation 20:14 Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death.
Matthew 25:41-43 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’

So it doesn't say non believers, it says those who don't do good deeds, as stated previously we're judged by our works according to Yeshua.

 

[Useless2015]

So, I checked to see who voted for the "Non-believer's fault" option, and I saw that three out of the four people who voted for it are conservative Muslims. The saddest thing about that is that I'm not surprised; I expected something like that before viewing the poll results.

But let's talk some more about how everyone in the evil media is "distorting the image of true Islam," please.

I digress. That's all I have to say about the (unfortunate) poll results for now.

God gives two options. Believe or disbelieve. The ones that disbelieve can only blame themselves.

If person A commits a crime is person B responsible? Is that logical?

I find it sad that you actually took the time to research every religious background of voters.

 

[Debater Slayer]

God gives two options. Believe or disbelieve. The ones that disbelieve can only blame themselves.

If person A commits a crime is person B responsible? Is that logical?

I find it sad that you actually took the time to research every religious background of voters.

Actually, I didn't "research" anything; I just clicked on a particular poll option to see who voted for it. I wasn't surprised.

But let's focus on the thread topic: if someone honestly searches for the truth and is not convinced that a god exists, what is the crime that he or she has committed? We can't choose what we find convincing; ideas and worldviews either make sense to us or they don't. I can't choose to believe that Jesus was crucified to save me from my supposed sins, for example, and I assume that to be the case with you as well, seeing as how you're not a Christian. Are we both criminals for not being convinced of Christianity despite doing our best to search for the truth?

 

[Shad]

Do not believe in Hell. Other than that God since God choose a horrible method of communication.

 

[DLR]

Sorry - I was unclear: you talked about how your denomination engages in missionary work. I'm saying that it would be irresponsible to do that if they haven't put some serious thought into whether they're damning people with their actions. If it's still an open question (and if we assume that there really is a god going around damning people), then aren't their actions reckless?

Edit: I didn't mean to suggest that you're evangelizing in this thread.

I would like to think the particular missionary's we support have a clear position on the subject. They live in the harshness of Africa about 350 days a year so I am guessing they have had time to ponder it at great length. I however am guilty as charged at this time. I don't really know what my denomination says about those who never had exposure. I've had the question forever and yet never pressed anyone truly knowledgeable for the answer. I came here to learn and be respectfully challenged. It will make me more informed over time.

 

[DLR]

I think we cannot assume that "we" acted immorally by sacrificing Jesus (assuming that the death penalty is not immoral as I believe it is).

If Jesus was what He claimed to be, He would not stay dead long and His "death" would cleanse sins, as a bonus. If He was not, then He was a liar, deserving the punishement

Ciao

- viole

I agree with the overall point you just intended to make.

But did you just state that while you believe the death penalty is immoral, Jesus deserved to be crucified for the crime of lying? If I ever mess up I hope you aren't on my jury.

 

[JoStories]

God sends missionaries around the world. Because the gospel is not only useful in the life to come but also in this life as well. If people kept the commandments of God there wouldn't be the suffering caused by war and hunger that we see in this world.

But what of those missionaries who force by coercion your faith on them and further, force them to reject their own culture? I speak of these things from having seen them first hand. And a dear friend of mine, a Baptist minister, when to Haiti after the earthquake to help and was appalled when one group of alleged 'christians' refused to give out water unless the people mouthed the platitudes to your faith. I find that reprehensible, as did he. What makes these missionaries believe that this faith has any more merit or degree of correctness than the religions that they encounter while traveling? Seems, at best, arrogant.

 

[JoStories]

Don't you think it's irresponsible to evangelize to people without having a clear answer in the first place?

I certainly do.

 

[JoStories]

I would like to think the particular missionary's we support have a clear position on the subject. They live in the harshness of Africa about 350 days a year so I am guessing they have had time to ponder it at great length. I however am guilty as charged at this time. I don't really know what my denomination says about those who never had exposure. I've had the question forever and yet never pressed anyone truly knowledgeable for the answer. I came here to learn and be respectfully challenged. It will make me more informed over time.

And I don;t believe your missionaries have any right to be there at all. I lived in Zimbabye for a year and saw that they have their own faiths. What makes you think yours is better? Do you have an exclusive right to who is wrong and who is right about God? Not that I am aware of.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

I voted for the snake because he was very devious and hissy.