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

[leibowde84]

My point was that @leibowde84's assumption that the non-believer who went to hell went there because he didn't believe in God is false.

That is the premise of the OP. Non-believers go to hell ...

 

[atpollard]

That is the premise of the OP. Non-believers go to hell ...

That is the premise of the OP, but I am not sure that it is a correct cause-effect assumption:

Do non-swimmers drown because they do not know how to swim, or because they fell into deep water?

 

[LuisDantas]

Romans chapter 1 explains it, beginning around verse 18.
(If you are interested.)

As it turns out, we have a handy online Bible integrated to the forum software. You may click on the automatic links to the verses and the whole chapter.

Romans 1:18-32

Romans 1

That chapter is not altogether very clear, but it surely holds no water whatsoever as a criticism of atheism. It is just Paul speaking ill of some people that he disagrees with, for reasons that are about as obscure as they could be. He also seems to be claiming that those people, whoever they might be, somehow became homosexuals (verse 27), apparently because God cursed them to (verse 26).

I guess it is a terrible thing to "hinder the truth" (verse 18), but why should an atheist worry about that?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

It's the Muslims' fault. Definitely the Muslims.

Don't forget the Catholics.

 

[Smart_Guy]

That does not follow, SG. It is all-out inconsistent a scenario. It would mean that God is both real and unworthy or at least insane.

I don't think too many people even have a choice on the matter. I certainly do not. I just do not.

I could lie about it if my life depended on it, probably. But it would still be a lie, and nothing more than that.

The thread is about hypothetical reality of going to hell. If it is a reality, then God is real, regardless to Him being unworthy of insane, otherwise who would put us there? Even if He is so, and not believing in Him would take us to hell, then the right thing to do is to believe in Him. If hell turned out to be real, then it is the fault of those not believing to be sent to it.

Given that, why there not be a choice to believe in it?

I'm not debating anything really, I'm analyzing the topic at hand. It suggest that non-believers go to hell.

This is what seems to me anyways. I'm to basing it on anything.

 

[leibowde84]

Do non-swimmers drown because they do not know how to swim, or because they fell into deep water?

They drown because they don't know how to swim. Those who can swim don't drown, unless there are some other unspecified circumstances.

 

[LuisDantas]

The thread is about hypothetical reality of going to hell. If it is a reality, then God is real, regardless to Him being unworthy of insane, otherwise who would put us there? Even if He is so, and not believing in Him would take us to hell, then the right thing to do is to believe in Him.

Uh, NO. No way. Nope. Not at all. In no way whatsoever.

Once it is established that God is real yet unfair or insane (and that _is_ indeed the premise), then he must be opposed in any way possible.

Believing in him at that juncture might be perhaps unavoidable, but by no means right.

If hell turned out to be real, then it is the fault of those not believing to be sent to it.

Fault is really not a proper word for that purpose.

Given that, why there not be a choice to believe in it?

I'm not debating anything really, I'm analyzing the topic at hand. It suggest that non-believers go to hell.

This is what seems to me anyways. I'm to basing it on anything.

Disbelief is so often a simple matter of choosing to be honest. Surely a God that does not understand that is not worthy.

 

[Thanda]

That is the premise of the OP. Non-believers go to hell ...

The OP did not specify what it was the non-believer didn't believe in. The non-believers in the Bible were those who didn't believe the truth. For example Jesus preached among the Jews who clearly believed there was a God. Yet it was among them that He identified some as believers and others as non-believers. And before you say He was speaking about belief in himself - remember He even accused His own Apostles of unbelief.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Could somebody please vote for Adam and Eve, I mean they can't be entirely blameless, having gotten us into this whole mess.

 

[leibowde84]

The OP did not specify what it was the non-believer didn't believe in. The non-believers in the Bible were those who didn't believe the truth. For example Jesus preached among the Jews who clearly believed there was a God. Yet it was among them that He identified some as believers and others as non-believers. And before you say He was speaking about belief in himself - remember He even accused His own Apostles of unbelief.

Where did Jesus say that non-believers would go to hell because of their lack of belief? I mean, he explicitly gave an example of a non-believer who would get to "the Kingdom" in one of his parables.

 

[Thanda]

Where did Jesus say that non-believers would go to hell because of their lack of belief? I mean, he explicitly gave an example of a non-believer who would get to "the Kingdom" in one of his parables.

That's precisely my point. When Jesus referred to a non-believer he was talking about someone who didn't believe the truth or who didn't trust God. He was not talking about someone who just didn't know (or wouldn't admit) God existed. So the non-believer (as defined by Jesus) will deserve hell if they go there.

 

[leibowde84]

That's precisely my point. When Jesus referred to a non-believer he was talking about someone who didn't believe the truth or who didn't trust God. He was not talking about someone who just didn't know (or wouldn't admit) God existed. So the non-believer (as defined by Jesus) will deserve hell if they go there.

Why will they deserve it? Can you be more specific than merely saying that they "don't believe the truth"?

 

[LuisDantas]

How often, if at all, do you think people "choose" not to believe in God?

 

[leibowde84]

That's precisely my point. When Jesus referred to a non-believer he was talking about someone who didn't believe the truth or who didn't trust God. He was not talking about someone who just didn't know (or wouldn't admit) God existed. So the non-believer (as defined by Jesus) will deserve hell if they go there.

I'm confused with LuisDantas on this one. How does one "choose" to not believe in God? Isn't it a case of either being convinced or not?

 

[LuisDantas]

Maybe whatever Paul meant there was not belief and disbelief as we current understand these words?

 

[Thanda]

Why will they deserve it? Can you be more specific than merely saying that they "don't believe the truth"?

The truth is the principles that bring true and lasting happiness. For example the truth is that smoking is bad. While it may give temporary relief from stress at times chances are when the health consequences kick in, the smoker will wish they had never started smoking or that they had stopped earlier.

So people who don't believe in the truth are people who commit adultery, lie, cheat, are prideful, greedy etc. even when it is explained to them that these acts or states of being are wrong. Such people will suffer for their sins.

This highlights the fact that even people who have never hear of the Christian God, or even any God at all, who did things they should reasonably have known were wrong will be considered wicked unless they repent.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Thank you. I have been having fun with my family and barely surviving replacing our tile floors with wood-tone vinyl planks. Instead of snow, everything is covered with concrete dust.

Have you EVER lied?
If by some strange chance the answer is YES, then welcome to the broad road filled with 'sinners'.
(Just to be clear, I will define a 'sinner' as one who has violated God's PRE-Abraham moral code.)

If there is a hell ( I have no public opinion on the topic and almost no private opinion on the subject of whether or not it really exists, but for this hypothetical discussion let's say that it does) then you and I deserve to go to hell because we broke the law that says "do not lie". Believing in God or not believing in God never enters into it. God has decided (as is his right) that all liars are unwelcome in his house (Heaven), so we can't go to God's house BECAUSE WE LIED.

I don't think that I can restate it clearer than that.

Jesus also had a kind of "double jeopardy" clause, where anyone who received reward (I would also think punishment as well) would not receive it in heaven. Let's say someone does their time for a sin on Earth. Per Jesus himself, that sin is dealt with and won't be considered upon divine judgment. If an atheist is killed by evil evangelists (just happened in Texas, from what Yahoo said), God won't punish them for unbelief.

Still ... I have a hard time swallowing that unbelief is the same thing as willful evil such as rape, theft, murder, etc. It's like saying wearing two types of clothes and eating certain seafood is an abomination and hell-worthy ... priorities just seem out of whack is all.

I, for one, have been basically threatened with hell by believers, so I think it is fair to say out aloud that such a god is not worth of respect, let alone worship.

I will agree that it is a degenerated view... but many people who swear to be believers present it to me as theirs, all the same.

I'm a believer and I've been sent to hell by others so often I've invested in real estate.

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

Yes, I consider him a Trojan Horse. Stoning people was just making martyrdom popular, so what better solution than to join the group and shoehorn in a belief system counter to the founder of said group? I think this would be why, if it happened, Judas was selected. Judas would have been the establishment's pre-Paul, but he died. So they eventually picked Saul/Paul to infiltrate and destroy Jesus' ministry from within.

I think it goes without saying that humans are evil. This is nothing new. The rapes, murders, adultery, lies, greed, envy etc. that proliferates in the world are ample evidence of this. So in any organisation, no matter how good the intentions behind its formation, so long as there are human beings there will be these evils.
So it is irrelevant how many people who claimed to be Christian in word were actually not in deed. What matters, ultimately, is the message that people receive.

I disagree. People aren't inherently evil (except maybe sociopaths). People are inherently ignorant and screwed up. Being a screw up is not the same thing as being evil. That's why God didn't end up killing Adam and Eve for eating fruit and why God didn't kill Cain for killing Abel. Sin must involve informed will and active desire.

Suppose, for example, the person who introduced you to Buddhism had kidnapped you and forcefully taught you all its precepts. And suppose he released you afterwards. Would you have refused to follow the Buddhist teachings simply because you didn't receive it in the ideal way?
I'm not trying to justify the evils committed by Christian missionaries I am merely trying to show you that truth is truth no matter how evil the conveyor of it may be.

Christianity teaches that Jesus makes us saved, better, etc. If you are willing to force others, violently if need be, then clearly the lessons didn't make much of an impression on you, right? How can something be true if the followers don't follow it?

God requires belief in Truth in order for people to avoid hell.

Ah, but is a set of dogmas truth?

That is the premise of the OP, but I am not sure that it is a correct cause-effect assumption:

Do non-swimmers drown because they do not know how to swim, or because they fell into deep water?

And why do swimmers drown?

 

[Thanda]

How often, if at all, do you think people "choose" not to believe in God?

If by believe in God you mean trusting God and having confidence in him: every second of the day is the answer. If by believe in God you mean believing exists, not nearly as often

I'm confused with LuisDantas on this one. How does one "choose" to not believe in God? Isn't it a case of either being convinced or not?

Again your problem is assuming when the Bible speaks of believers it speaks solely of people's opinion on the existence of God. But clearly since most of the new testament (and even the old testament) was addressed to people who clearly believed God existed, the numerous times believing and not believing or believers and non-believers are mentioned indicates that it is unlikely that the belief being spoken of is in relation to the existence of God.

Instead the context seems to suggest that the belief is related to either a trust in God (which someone may or may not have even if they believe God exists) or a belief in the principles and truths taught in the gospel. Both these aspects of belief are a choice.

So no, it isn't a matter of being convinced or not. And with regards to being convinced let me also say this. There are many people in this forum who are unconvinced about the theory of evolution. Many who are pro evolution have pointed out that the only reason they are not convinced is because they have never actually studied the evidence that is available. Indeed a biologist would be expected to study and perhaps conduct some of the experiments himself in order that he may be satisfied in the veracity of the claims made by the theory. For him to simply reject the ToE without ever studying the claims and conducting the experiments would be considered folly in the highest and his lack of belief would be clearly his own choice.

And so it is with the gospel. Before someone decides that its claims are unconvincing he must have studied them first, and conducted any experiments that are prescribed. To simply go around proudly claiming to be unconvinced without doing to is also folly of the highest order.

 

[Intojoy]

THE GOOD NEWS YAY!!!! Yeah generally good news comes in the form of a vicarious human sacrifice for sins that i didn't inherently commit. The aztecs thought that too as they slaughtered people for the son God. But You know adam and eve are a myth right? There were never fewer than 1000 humans otherwise all of humanity would have massive incest disease. original sin was an invention by the catholic church to get people to feel obligated to pay the church money and become a member even if they didn't do anything very sinful. If everyone has sin no matter what then its easy to get money and power by manipulating people.

Is there a question here?

The answer to the OP is:

People don't go to hell because they don't believe, they go because of sin.
Everyone is born heading for hell.

 

[Thanda]

How can something be true if the followers don't follow it?

This question is a non sequitur. That someone who professes to follow a particular religion is a liar doesn't mean that religion is false.