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

[Thanda]

Ah, but is a set of dogmas truth?

Truth is truth even if some people consider it nothing but "a set of dogmas".

 

[Smart_Guy]

Don't forget the Catholics.

The Catholics are sheep (innocent) compared to Muslims. Muslims are serious and take no nonsense from anybody

 

[leibowde84]

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 seems counter-intuitive. Are you saying that people who commit adultry, lie, cheat, etc. don't "believe" (as you say) that what they are doing is wrong? Because, that couldn't be further from the truth. People do things that they know to be wrong/harmful to others. I fail to see how belief has anything to do with it.

 

[Smart_Guy]

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.

Fault is really not a proper word for that purpose.

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

Maybe you're right

I wish I can see your point tho. Religion might have blinded me

 

[leibowde84]

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.

One cannot "trust in God" unless they actually believe that God exists, though. So, I don't get what you are saying here.

 

[Thanda]

One cannot "trust in God" unless they actually believe that God exists, though. So, I don't get what you are saying here.

Indeed. And as I have already shown, there are ways of coming to a belief in God.

Let me help you understand the relationship between believing in God and believing in the truth. The truth (the whole truth and nothing but the truth), or rather living by it, is what is required to be saved. But the full truth is known only by God. And it is only through God's help that anybody can ever come to live the whole truth. Since there is already some truth in the world every one has an opportunity to prove whether they love the truth or not. But even if a person lives according to the truth they have they will never be able to be worthy of salvation until they receive the whole truth. That cannot happen until that person comes to know God and trust him.

That means everyone one on earth can be classified as a believer or a non-believer depending on whether they believe in and follow the truths already available to them regardless of whether or not they know or believe in the existence of God. But before a person can achieve their full salvation they will have to a knowledge of and belief in God (meaning trusting him). For that to happen each person will have to be given sufficient evidence or the opportunity to have sufficient evidence in order for them to arrive at the conclusion that God both exists and is worthy of their obedience. Having received that evidence, if they continue to reject the truth and refuse to trust in God (their trust will be measured by their willingness to obey) they will be worthy of hell.

Now you may wonder why someone who has sufficient evidence would still reject something. The answer is people don't always do the wrong thing because they didn't know better: sometimes people choose to act against their better judgement.

 

[leibowde84]

Indeed. And as I have already shown, there are ways of coming to a belief in God.

Let me help you understand the relationship between believing in God and believing in the truth. The truth (the whole truth and nothing but the truth), or rather living by it, is what is required to be saved. But the full truth is known only by God. And it is only through God's help that anybody can ever come to live the whole truth. Since there is already some truth in the world every one has an opportunity to prove whether they love the truth or not. But even if a person lives according to the truth they have they will never be able to be worthy of salvation until they receive the whole truth. That cannot happen until that person comes to know God and trust him.

That means everyone one on earth can be classified as a believer or a non-believer depending on whether they believe in and follow the truths already available to them regardless of whether or not they know or believe in the existence of God. But before a person can achieve their full salvation they will have to a knowledge of and belief in God (meaning trusting him). For that to happen each person will have to be given sufficient evidence or the opportunity to have sufficient evidence in order for them to arrive at the conclusion that God both exists and is worthy of their obedience. Having received that evidence, if they continue to reject the truth and refuse to trust in God (their trust will be measured by their willingness to obey) they will be worthy of hell.

Now you may wonder why someone who has sufficient evidence would still reject something. The answer is people don't always do the wrong thing because they didn't know better: sometimes people choose to act against their better judgement.

That actually sounds pretty fair. Thanks for the explanation.

 

[Thanda]

This seems counter-intuitive. Are you saying that people who commit adultry, lie, cheat, etc. don't "believe" (as you say) that what they are doing is wrong? Because, that couldn't be further from the truth. People do things that they know to be wrong/harmful to others. I fail to see how belief has anything to do with it.

They know they are wrong, but they believe they will be better of doing the wrong thing than what is right - that's what belief has to do with it.

 

[leibowde84]

they believe they will be better of doing the wrong thing than what is right

Can you support this claim? I ask because it seems absurd, as people who do such things tend to feel extreme guilt afterwards. I think they allow their emotions/desires to get the best of them, which leads later to regret. I don't think that there is any aspect of them "believing they will be better off" or anything like that.

 

[Thanda]

Can you support this claim? I ask because it seems absurd, as people who do such things tend to feel extreme guilt afterwards. I think they allow their emotions/desires to get the best of them, which leads later to regret. I don't think that there is any aspect of them "believing they will be better off" or anything like that.

There are people in this world who are without patience. They cannot wait for a good thing. Some when presented with a choice of receiving temporary but immediate satisfaction or long-lasting but delayed satisfaction, they will choose the former. They value the happiness / or satisfaction they can receive now high above that which they will receive later, even when they know the happiness they receive now is likely to be followed by heartache later.

Another peculiarity about human beings is their ability to rationalise or justify themselves. So even when a person if faced with a choice they have been faced with before; and even if in that earlier scenario, upon choosing to do the wrong thing, they felt pain afterwards - human beings have the ability to convince themselves that this time it will be different. Kind of like a criminal who spends ten years in prison for robbery and does it again. Often they have convinced themselves they won't get caught again.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

The aztecs thought that too as they slaughtered people for the son God.

Not quite. Don't misrepresent the beliefs of other cultures to make your anti-Christian point.

 

[Smart_Guy]

Not quite. Don't misrepresent the beliefs of other cultures to make your anti-Christian point.

It's okay, Frank. We can always advise others if we think they are wrong

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

It's okay, Frank. We can always advise others if we think they are wrong

Huh? I did "advise" him. I told him not to misrepresent the beliefs of other cultures.

 

[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.

I am a moral nihilist, so I do not believe in metaphysical right and wrong.
But I can imagine that acts of sedition against the Roman Empire deserved death. So, if I had been a Roman Girl I would have probably voted against Jesus.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Smart_Guy]

Huh? I did "advise" him. I told him not to misrepresent the beliefs of other cultures.

I mean advise him with the right conception and without getting defensive

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I mean advise him with the right conception and without getting defensive

 

[leibowde84]

I agree. If you are going to ask someone not to misrepresent a religion, then you are responsible to provide an explanation as to why it was, in fact, a misrepresentation or you aren't doing anyone any good.

 

[Willamena]

Title.

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

If you think mythological characters are at fault, more than an explanation is required welcome.

 

[Politesse]

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.

So Jesus can reverse this, but only for believers? Is this because he needs our belief to save us, or because he does not desire to save others?

 

[Willamena]

So Jesus can reverse this, but only for believers? Is this because he needs our belief to save us, or because he does not desire to save others?

Or because our beliefs are fuel for his actions.