Why would God send good people to Hell just because they dont believe he exists?

[Meow Mix]

I can give you answers to the first but instead I would refer you to someone like William Lane Craig

I'm not in a good state of mind to respond to you sincerely at the moment (had a good, long, whiskey soaked Friday night ) but I just wanted to comment that I'm no rookie to theology.

I've debated W.L.C. on several occasions; same with Dr. Alvin Plantinga at Notre Dame. (Essentially, any accomplished theologian that is willing to answer e-mail debates from strangers -- not saying I'm hot shiz or anything!)

It's not that I'm ignorant of the issues surrounding theism. It's that I'm searching -- I'm legitimately, earnestly, honestly searching for the answers on why people believe some of these things. I'm not closed-minded. I don't agree with arguments from authority, but sometimes it's interesting to butt heads with authoritative figures because they're known for their intimate understanding of the issues.

Let me put it this way. I also debated Dawkins over his book "The God Delusion." I thought it was a shoddy book with sophomoric philosophy. Discussing it with the horse's mouth helped provide a little background that raised my opinion of it only slightly (I still think it's undergraduate level philosophy -- Dawkins should stick to biology, not philosophy). Well, W.L.C. and A. Plantinga are wrong on a great number of things; wrong on a level that they can't even compensate for in person.

It's not that I'm not trying; and it's certainly not that I'm vain enough to think that I know more than a professor of philosophy and epistemology at Notre Dame. It's just that, well, it's still the case that they're demonstrably wrong. They don't make the case. Regardless of the name they've carved for themselves, people like W.L.C. just aren't convincing if they're incorrect or fallacious on a fundamental level.

I'd be more than happy to engage in a discussion about exactly how, where, and why W.L.C. or Dawkins or Plantinga go wrong on philosophical issues. You'll have to forgive me, as I think I said (maybe I didn't) I've been drinking for a long time today so I'm kind of blathering, but my point is that there's probably very few ideas or people that can be name-dropped to me that I'm not already familiar with when it comes to the theism/atheism debate.

That sounds totally conceited, I don't mean it in a way like that, I just mean... well, I put it best when I said I'm not a rookie. I know what the biggest and baddest theists and theologians can bring to the table from first hand experience, and I'm simply not impressed -- not from a failure to understand it, but because I can demonstrate why what they bring to the table is wrong or fallacious.

 

[DandyAndy]

I'm not in a good state of mind to respond to you sincerely at the moment (had a good, long, whiskey soaked Friday night ) but I just wanted to comment that I'm no rookie to theology.

I've debated W.L.C. on several occasions; same with Dr. Alvin Plantinga at Notre Dame. (Essentially, any accomplished theologian that is willing to answer e-mail debates from strangers -- not saying I'm hot shiz or anything!)

It's not that I'm ignorant of the issues surrounding theism. It's that I'm searching -- I'm legitimately, earnestly, honestly searching for the answers on why people believe some of these things. I'm not closed-minded. I don't agree with arguments from authority, but sometimes it's interesting to butt heads with authoritative figures because they're known for their intimate understanding of the issues.

Let me put it this way. I also debated Dawkins over his book "The God Delusion." I thought it was a shoddy book with sophomoric philosophy. Discussing it with the horse's mouth helped provide a little background that raised my opinion of it only slightly (I still think it's undergraduate level philosophy -- Dawkins should stick to biology, not philosophy). Well, W.L.C. and A. Plantinga are wrong on a great number of things; wrong on a level that they can't even compensate for in person.

It's not that I'm not trying; and it's certainly not that I'm vain enough to think that I know more than a professor of philosophy and epistemology at Notre Dame. It's just that, well, it's still the case that they're demonstrably wrong. They don't make the case. Regardless of the name they've carved for themselves, people like W.L.C. just aren't convincing if they're incorrect or fallacious on a fundamental level.

I'd be more than happy to engage in a discussion about exactly how, where, and why W.L.C. or Dawkins or Plantinga go wrong on philosophical issues. You'll have to forgive me, as I think I said (maybe I didn't) I've been drinking for a long time today so I'm kind of blathering, but my point is that there's probably very few ideas or people that can be name-dropped to me that I'm not already familiar with when it comes to the theism/atheism debate.

That sounds totally conceited, I don't mean it in a way like that, I just mean... well, I put it best when I said I'm not a rookie. I know what the biggest and baddest theists and theologians can bring to the table from first hand experience, and I'm simply not impressed -- not from a failure to understand it, but because I can demonstrate why what they bring to the table is wrong or fallacious.

I only brought up Craig because dude is A LOT smarter than me and I think he articulates himself very well and very clearly - right or wrong - he's very easy to understand, I think, so I recommend him. I dig C. S. Lewis too but I don't think he has debated anybody recently...

Perhaps I can offer something different in our discussion - maybe a layman's view is required. I am certainly a layman. I don't know. I'm willing to talk and listen as long as you're willing - I'm clearly not on your level of intellect - but that's ok, maybe I'll learn something.

:jam:

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

I simply meant that if Christianity is right, and you know what Christianity says, then you know what will happen to you if Christianity is right.

Same goes for me - if atheism is right and I know what happens to me if it is right (nothing) then it will happen to me even if I don't believe it. I think. Does that make sense?

If you view the evidence and are not convinced, that's fine, it's your decision. I get bummed when people base their disbelief off of bad evidence/information - I'm not accusing you of that, just throwing it out there.

Okay, I see where you're coming from but I don't see how it gets us anywhere and I don't believe it was what you meant initially. So lets backtrack a little bit and review what you originally said right before I got into the discussion:

"What if the father does everything but grab the child and rip them away, with the child kicking and screaming and cursing and unhappy FOREVER? What would the point be? The child would always try to walk away from the father into the pit. The father does everything except force and the child still refuses to not step into the pit? That's not abandonment at all - that's a choice by the child."

In this analogy the child (atheist) is fully aware of and knows that there actually is a hell and that he will burn there for eternity but freely chooses to go there anyway.

The analogy is flawed because, as I said before, I do not know there is a hell and if I did, or at least thought the idea plausible, I would most certainly not choose to go there. See what I'm getting at?

On top of all that, knowing that if I'm wrong I will spend eternity in hell changes nothing because I also know that if I'm right, I won't.

If I ever become a Christian or theist, it will be out of a conviction that God exists, not out of fear that I might be wrong. If God actually does exist, I don't think he'd have it any other way.

Have you seen Rush live? What's your favorite Rush album?

I've seen them about seven or eight times. Most recently I saw them twice on the current Time Machine Tour. I don't know if you've heard about it but they've been touring the last eight months or so playing the entire Moving Pictures album plus a few favorites like The Spirit of Radio and whatnot.

As for my favorite album, it's probably a tossup between Moving Pictures and Power Windows.

What about yourself, what's your favorite?

 

[atanu]

Im going to get straight to the point.

I am no Athiest. I believe there IS a higher power but I do not believe he is as wrathful as most Church's make him/her out to be.

What gets me angry about alot of Church's is that unless you follow their particular way of worship you will go to hell. What kind of rubbish is this? I thought Jesus taught people to love thy neighbor not judgeing them on Race or Religion? Or am I wrong here?

Nearly all people who participate in Church are very Judgemental, I have been told numerous times by Christians I will go to Hell if I dont change my ways..

I Don't Smoke
I Don't Gamble
I Do Partake in Alcohol but I Don't get drunk or drink to get drunk
I am a Virgin so no Sex either
I do not commit crimes

I guess they judge me wicked because I don't go to Church?
But why should I go to Church? How does going to Church make me more good?

I think God doe's Exist but I dont believe he will send people to Hell (If that place even exists) simply for " not believing in him " or not following a specific Church's practice.

Why would God send people to Hell for being Good Careing Decent people?

Hi

The answer, IMO, will depend upon what one imagines God to be. As per my understanding based on scripture, God does not punish or reward. It is nature that does it.

Gita Chapter V

14. Neither agency nor actions does the Lord create for the world, nor union with the fruits of actions; it is Nature that acts.

15. The Lord accepts neither the demerit nor even the merit of any; knowledge is enveloped by ignorance, thereby beings are deluded.
----------------

The Self -- the immutable Lord does not bargain. But a nature of the Immutable is the Mind that practically is Lord for us, as long as the source of the Mind is not known. And Nature (Mind) has qualities of goodness as well as cruelty. Mind punishes and not the Immutable Lord.

The following from an old writing is added for those interested:

Spoiler: [B]Lord That Does Not Bargain[/B]

Aitareya Upanishad
III-i-2: It is this heart (intellect) and this mind that were stated earlier. It is sentience, rulership, secular knowledge, presence of mind, retentiveness, sense-perception, fortitude, thinking, genius, mental suffering, memory, ascertainment, resolution, life-activities, hankering, passion and such others. All these verily are the names of Consciousness.

III-i-3: This One (Mind) is the lower Brahman; this is Indra, this is Prajapati; this is all these gods; and this is these five elements, viz. earth, air, space, water, fire; and this is all these (big creatures), -----. All these have Consciousness as the giver of their reality; all these are impelled by Consciousness; the universe has Consciousness as its eye and Consciousness is its end. Consciousness is Brahman. ​

III-i-4: Through this Self that is Consciousness, he ascended higher up from this world, and getting all desires fulfilled in that heavenly world, he became immortal, he became immortal.
-----------------------------
Actually there is no discrete being separate from all other beings. All this is consciousness and numerous kinds of fields (khetra) within consciousness. Consciousness is akin to an unlimited ocean. Ishwara (Lord) field abides with consciousness as the full; and being full, it has no desire. Ishwara is also khetra jnani -- the knower of all fields.

There are many other fields with varying desires with consciousness abiding at various locations -- for example, at the crest of a wave, looking at bigger waves and fearing; or at the juncture of ocean and the rising wave and not knowing which way to go.​

Only when the consciousness abides as pure consciousness, without becoming something else by erroneosly attaching the Self to attributes, the indesructible Immutable will be clearly known as the Lord that does not bargain.

 

[DandyAndy]

Okay, I see where you're coming from but I don't see how it gets us anywhere and I don't believe it was what you meant initially. So lets backtrack a little bit and review what you originally said right before I got into the discussion:

"What if the father does everything but grab the child and rip them away, with the child kicking and screaming and cursing and unhappy FOREVER? What would the point be? The child would always try to walk away from the father into the pit. The father does everything except force and the child still refuses to not step into the pit? That's not abandonment at all - that's a choice by the child."

In this analogy the child (atheist) is fully aware of and knows that there actually is a hell and that he will burn there for eternity but freely chooses to go there anyway.

The analogy is flawed because, as I said before, I do not know there is a hell and if I did, or at least thought the idea plausible, I would most certainly not choose to go there. See what I'm getting at?

On top of all that, knowing that if I'm wrong I will spend eternity in hell changes nothing because I also know that if I'm right, I won't.

If I ever become a Christian or theist, it will be out of a conviction that God exists, not out of fear that I might be wrong. If God actually does exist, I don't think he'd have it any other way.

I agree that the example was flawed, I should have said that when replying with what I said instead of trying to show a flawed example flawed with my flawed response. :run:

I see what you are saying too. Makes sense. I will say that I don't think there's anything wrong with coming to God for fear of eternal punishment - I think it's not ideal - but in doing so the individual has realized they are deserving of Hell (sinful/guilty) and realize they need help/forgiveness (Christ), which leads to faith and repentance. A foot in the door is a foot in the door, y'know? Obviously that is just my opinion and I freely admit I could be wrong about that - I don't think it's right to preach only fire and brimstone, but I also don't think it's right to preach only feel good stuff - there needs to be a nice mixture.

I only think this because Jesus talked about Hell a lot. I think he knew that people needed to hear about it and I also think he loved people enough to tell them what awfulness awaited them without help.

I've seen them about seven or eight times. Most recently I saw them twice on the current Time Machine Tour. I don't know if you've heard about it but they've been touring the last eight months or so playing the entire Moving Pictures album plus a few favorites like The Spirit of Radio and whatnot.

As for my favorite album, it's probably a tossup between Moving Pictures and Power Windows.

What about yourself, what's your favorite?

Wow, that's awesome. Yeah I heard about the tour but with work and being in a odd spot for concerts (KY) I think the closest stop was Nashville. I've never seen them - just became a fan a few years ago in college.

I dig Grace Under Pressure and 2112. Fly By Night has been growing on me recently. I think Grace Under Pressure is my favorite though.

 

[atanu]

Let me say that it is not my place to judge who goes to heaven and hell - only God can make that call. But it is made VERY plain in the Bible that those who do not trust in Christ, are not forgiven of their sins through Christ, and do not place their hope or faith in Christ, will be eternally separated from God - no judgement there on my part. Those are just the facts according to the Bible, that's what God said. It would be wrong of me to not point that out to others.

So to answer your question, yes, upstanding citizens that mind their own business and do nice things and try to be 'good' people will go to Hell without Christ.

But Why? That was the original question. What you have written above is like doctrine of Hitler -- surrender to my whims or i will **** you, your family, and your country and also send you to gas chamber.

Are you missing something?

 

[DandyAndy]

But Why? That was the original question. What you have written above is like doctrine of Hitler -- surrender to my whims or i will **** you, your family, and your country and also send you to gas chamber.

Are you missing something?

I answered the 'but why?' They aren't good people - there's no objective definition of a 'good person.' Ask 50 people what a good person is and you'll get at least 25 different answers. God's definition of a 'good person' is the only one I am concerned with - He gave the Law to show that NO ONE is good. Then He provided a way to become good despite our wickedness. These are all fundamental aspects of Christianity.

No, you are missing something with your very inaccurate example.

In your example the evil one offers an ultimatum to the innocent victims.

Flip it around and you will have it right - the holy one that gave all life and value offers a choice to the wicked ones.

God (perfectly holy) says to humanity (made up of sinful, wicked individuals based upon their own actions and choices) 'hey, you guys are evil - you kill each other, you rape children, you hate each other, you curse your neighbors, you commit adultery and sodomy and bestiality, you lie, you cheat, you lust after the opposite sex, you worship stupid things like celebrities and statues and money, you constantly tell people they are worthless and make them feel worthless, you destroy the beauty around you - but you know what? I still love you. Even though you are evil, I will make you holy and righteous - all you have to do is accept Christ and trust in him and do your best to live a holy life. You have to CHOOSE it, I won't force it on you. I know you'll still screw up if you choose it, but aspire for something greater than the filth you have chosen to become. But listen, if you reject me and continue to make vile, wicked, evil choices then you will remain vile, wicked evil creatures and you will NEVER see me again - you will be eternally separated from the life giver and from the source of all good things - it's your CHOCIE.'

If you understand the basics of Christianity CORRECTLY and you view the evidence and you find it too flimsy or too unbelievable or you just don't get it or you just don't want to get it - that's fine. If you don't want to believe it, fine, it's your choice.

Otherwise PLEASE don't mischaracterize my beliefs in such a gross way as to degrade what I believe by making an incorrect and childish point, and then have the nerve to tell me that I'm missing something as if I'm some kind of fool. As my grandpa said "I ain't very smart, but I ain't dumb either."

 

[PolyHedral]

...there's no objective definition of a 'good person.' [...] He gave the Law to show that NO ONE is good.

You're going to have to explain that one. :sarcastic

 

[DandyAndy]

You're going to have to explain that one. :sarcastic

The 'no objective definition of a good person' part?

Well, what is a good person? If I kill 4 people but save 12 people's lives, am I a good person? If I donate money and time to the local food bank and feed hungry people and even buy some of the homeless people coats in the winter, but then I watch men degrade women in pornography and derive pleasure from it in my free time, am I a good person?

Here's my question - is a good person someone that does more good things than bad things (both in number and degree) OR is a good person someone that doesn't do ANY bad things and does ONLY good things? What's the ratio? Is it 60-40 good/bad? Is it 80-20 good/bad? Is it 51-49 good/bad?


:run:


Or the Law showing that no man is perfect (God's definition of holy/righteous)?

Romans chapters 1-8 really explain it well.

James 2:10 says that if you've broken only one law, you may as well have broken them all.

There are examples in the OT as well, but I'm not as well versed in the OT as the NT, so it would take me much longer to find the specific verses.

Since God is Holy and perfect, it doesn't matter if we only do 1 bad thing (sin) or 1,000,000,000,000,000 bad things (sins), both numbers are bigger than 0, both numbers are NOT perfect if 0 is perfect.

If God were 99.9% perfect and .1% evil/sin/wicked, well, He wouldn't be perfect anymore. He can't be around sin, He can't stand sin, He can't be a part of sin because He would not be perfect/holy/righteous anymore.

Think of the color white - if just a bit of black gets mixed in, you don't have white anymore.

 

[PolyHedral]

The 'no objective definition of a good person' part?

Well, what is a good person? If I kill 4 people but save 12 people's lives, am I a good person? If I donate money and time to the local food bank and feed hungry people and even buy some of the homeless people coats in the winter, but then I watch men degrade women in pornography and derive pleasure from it in my free time, am I a good person?

Here's my question - is a good person someone that does more good things than bad things (both in number and degree) OR is a good person someone that doesn't do ANY bad things and does ONLY good things? What's the ratio? Is it 60-40 good/bad? Is it 80-20 good/bad? Is it 51-49 good/bad?

Once you've assigned a value to all the acts the person has done, you can answer the question. You could have a system that follows the latter, but it would be needlessly strict.

Or the Law showing that no man is perfect (God's definition of holy/righteous)?

Why is God's definition of "good" more important than any other? You said earlier that there was no objective definition.

Think of the color white - if just a bit of black gets mixed in, you don't have white anymore.

For sufficiently small quantities of black, you do, because the human eye can't detect small enough changes.

 

[DandyAndy]

Once you've assigned a value to all the acts the person has done, you can answer the question. You could have a system that follows the latter, but it would be needlessly strict.

Yes, but that would be subjective, because we are assigning the values. One group could come up with different criteria than another. Then who would be right?

Why is God's definition of "good" more important than any other? You said earlier that there was no objective definition.

Because He is the standard, that which all other is measured against and compared to. Since I believe God made everything and that He is all holy, I'm ok with Him setting the standard/being the standard.

I did say earlier there is no objective definition, and I think I meant in human terms - 'that which is imperfect cannot set the standard of perfection' kind of thing. I just think that when we define it, it becomes subjective. I know some probably believe that we (humans) defined God and 'made Him up,' but if He exists He has to exist apart from us/above us.

There is an objective definition of good with God (it is God) but without God I do not see a standard of 'good' which is totally 'good.' It all becomes muddied without God.

For sufficiently small quantities of black, you do, because the human eye can't detect small enough changes.

Touche :clap

That would be a good illustration as to why we humans should not be judging each other, especially when it comes to 'good' and 'bad' and Heaven and Hell. Now we can make those kinds of assessments (good, bad) in life because I believe that moral standard is part of all (normal) people and was given us by God. But we must remember that we don't have the whole picture - the human eye is not perfect, meaning we are not the ones that should be judging, only the one with the 'perfect eye' can judge (that would be God). God could detect the itty bitty speck of black.

 

[waitasec]

i found an interesting passage
1 peter 3:18-19
For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive by the Spirit, [19] through whom also he went and preached to the spirits in prison...

now if jesus went to preach to those in hell, who now know there is such a place because they are there...who in their right mind would reject his offer?

this brings me to 2 conclusions....
1st, faith was not required for those to believe in heaven and hell...they were in hell.
2nd, faith is now required for us today to believe in heaven and hell...we are a live.
and my logic would conclude a double standard...

 

[idav]

Why would God send people to Hell for being Good Careing Decent people?

That sounds like a god that has self esteem issues.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

i found an interesting passage
1 peter 3:18-19
For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive by the Spirit, [19] through whom also he went and preached to the spirits in prison...
now if jesus went to preach to those in hell, who now know there is such a place because they are there...

Where does it say Jesus went to preach to those in hell [sheol/ hades] ?

Doesn't is say in 'prison' ?
So, what is the prison? KJV uses the word hell at 2nd Peter 2v4.
The word that was translated in English as hell was: tartarus.
Tartarus was Not hell but as Jude explains in verse 6 that prison was
'chains under darkness' for debased angels not humans.

While Jesus was in the' Bible's hell' [Acts 2vs27,31] Jesus, according to John 11vs11-14, believed that the biblical hell was where the unconscious dead were in a deep sleep-like state until resurrection.

Jesus was Not resurrected from hell to hell.
Jesus was resurrected in the spirit realm where angels [not humans] were.

Remember too that all in the biblical hell will be 'delivered up' [resurrected].
-Revelation 20vs13,14.
Only emptied-out hell [gravedom] is cast into: second death.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

I see what you are saying too. Makes sense. I will say that I don't think there's anything wrong with coming to God for fear of eternal punishment - I think it's not ideal - but in doing so the individual has realized they are deserving of Hell (sinful/guilty) and realize they need help/forgiveness (Christ), which leads to faith and repentance. A foot in the door is a foot in the door, y'know? Obviously that is just my opinion and I freely admit I could be wrong about that - I don't think it's right to preach only fire and brimstone, but I also don't think it's right to preach only feel good stuff - there needs to be a nice mixture.

I only think this because Jesus talked about Hell a lot. I think he knew that people needed to hear about it and I also think he loved people enough to tell them what awfulness awaited them without help.

The problem with coming to God out of fear of eternal punishment is that the motivating factor would be fear, not love. I don't know about you but if I were God, the last thing I'd want is for my children to be afraid of me. Also, if God exists then he knows he's God and all-powerful. He wouldn't need my quavering obedience to remind him of that.

As for the thing about sinful nature, I didn't choose it. Assuming you are referencing the Genesis story, God himself chose to curse all of mankind with a sinful nature for the sin committed by just two people.

The story doesn't make sense anyway because the thinking is that when Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit, they acquired the knowledge of good and evil and thus were imbued with a sinful nature. The problem is, they had to commit the sin of disobedience in the first place to attain the knowledge of good and evil which means that, though they were not aware of it, they already had a sinful nature before they ate the fruit.

 

[atanu]

No, you are missing something with your very inaccurate example.

In your example the evil one offers an ultimatum to the innocent victims.

Oh No. In his eyes he was absolutely correct. In your eyes he was wrong. You yourself say that judgements are subjective.

God (perfectly holy) says to humanity (made up of sinful, wicked individuals based upon their own actions and choices) 'hey, you guys are evil - you kill each other, you rape children, you hate each other, you curse your neighbors, you commit adultery and sodomy and bestiality, you lie, you cheat, you lust after the opposite sex, you worship stupid things like celebrities and statues and money, you constantly tell people they are worthless and make them feel worthless, you destroy the beauty around you - but you know what? I still love you.

I understand that God created us?

Even though you are evil, I will make you holy and righteous - all you have to do is accept Christ and trust in him and do your best to live a holy life.

In other words : "I made you evil. Now I will make you good. Sing glory of Christ, whom christians alone know (I do not tell the truth to any one else. I divulge my secrets to christians alone)".

Otherwise PLEASE don't mischaracterize my beliefs in such a gross way as to degrade what I believe by making an incorrect and childish point, and then have the nerve to tell me that I'm missing something as if I'm some kind of fool. As my grandpa said "I ain't very smart, but I ain't dumb either."

My attempt was not that and is not that. I asked you for reasons, as asked in the OP.

OTOH, you seem to be assuming childishness in me. Not a problem for me, however.

 

[atanu]

God (perfectly holy) says to humanity (made up of sinful, wicked individuals based upon their own actions and choices) 'hey, you guys are evil - you kill each other, you rape children, you hate each other, you curse your neighbors, you commit adultery and sodomy and bestiality, you lie, you cheat, you lust after the opposite sex, you worship stupid things like celebrities and statues and money, you constantly tell people they are worthless and make them feel worthless, you destroy the beauty around you - but you know what? I still love you. Even though you are evil, I will make you holy and righteous - all you have to do is accept Christ and trust in him and do your best to live a holy life. You have to CHOOSE it, I won't force it on you. I know you'll still screw up if you choose it, but aspire for something greater than the filth you have chosen to become. But listen, if you reject me and continue to make vile, wicked, evil choices then you will remain vile, wicked evil creatures and you will NEVER see me again - you will be eternally separated from the life giver and from the source of all good things - it's your CHOCIE.'
If you understand the basics of Christianity CORRECTLY --------

I heard "God before All and God in All". A good christian told me this and this is exactly what my scripture also teaches.

Without knowing essential godliness of all, if you harp on evil in all, then
do you understand God CORRECTLY --------?

 

[DandyAndy]

i found an interesting passage
1 peter 3:18-19
For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive by the Spirit, [19] through whom also he went and preached to the spirits in prison...

now if jesus went to preach to those in hell, who now know there is such a place because they are there...who in their right mind would reject his offer?

this brings me to 2 conclusions....
1st, faith was not required for those to believe in heaven and hell...they were in hell.
2nd, faith is now required for us today to believe in heaven and hell...we are a live.
and my logic would conclude a double standard...

I wrote a response before reading the chapter (I deleted it) and then went and read the verse in context - when you continue reading, it says who Christ went to talk to - he spoke to those that were disobedient long ago in the days of Noah when God patiently waited for the ark to be built. This is a specific group of people in a specific group of time - why they are singled out, I don't know. It could even be the fallen angels that produced the Nephilim (though I doubt it). Also a key point, my translation (NIV) says that Jesus made a proclamation - now he could be preaching the gospel, or he simply could be proclaiming his victory over death. But I think when you read the whole thing, you get a better picture.

Plus I don't understand your conclusions...

 

[DandyAndy]

The problem with coming to God out of fear of eternal punishment is that the motivating factor would be fear, not love. I don't know about you but if I were God, the last thing I'd want is for my children to be afraid of me. Also, if God exists then he knows he's God and all-powerful. He wouldn't need my quavering obedience to remind him of that.

But if you truly came to God, even if it was initially out of fear, by the very nature of the thing (forgiveness, reward of eternal life, commitment, sacrifice, etc) love would become the dominating feeling. A fear of God (probably better rendered as reverence or respect, but fear makes sense) is a healthy part of the relationship - it isn't a fear we have of spiders or of being robbed or of 'oh no please don't stab me mr. murderer I don't want to bleed to death' it's a fear of 'God can do anything, God made everything, He made me, He is all-powerful and all-knowing, He gives life and He takes life - He is way better than I am,' that's so awe-inspiring (personally) that it instills a bit of fear into me. I think that's healthy.

As a child you fear your parents (if they are good parents) - you don't hide from them, but when they speak you listen and when they command you obey kind of thing.

As for the thing about sinful nature, I didn't choose it. Assuming you are referencing the Genesis story, God himself chose to curse all of mankind with a sinful nature for the sin committed by just two people.

But you have chosen to sin. God didn't curse mankind with a sinful nature - read Genesis 3. He cursed the serpent. He cursed woman with the pain of childbirth and being ruled over by the man. He cursed man with toiling and working hard to live and also with returning to the dust. God cursed the ground (Creation) and caused it to fight against man (producing thistles and thorns and man having to eat plants of the field).

God never cursed them with a sinful nature - God told them the consequence of their action of eating the fruit. They ate it. If your mother tells you to not touch the hot stove because it will burn you and you run up and touch it, is it her fault or yours? It's your fault. It's Adam and Eve's fault we have a sinful nature - and we aren't guilty because we have a sinful nature - we are guilty because we have individually chosen to sin over and over again.

The story doesn't make sense anyway because the thinking is that when Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit, they acquired the knowledge of good and evil and thus were imbued with a sinful nature. The problem is, they had to commit the sin of disobedience in the first place to attain the knowledge of good and evil which means that, though they were not aware of it, they already had a sinful nature before they ate the fruit.

I hear that a lot and I think it's faulty logic and I think it doesn't work at all.

#1 there is 0 indication in the text that they were unable to understand cause and effect, or consequences. In fact the text shows that they DID understand consequence and cause and effect - in Genesis 3:2 Eve tells the serpent what she is able to eat and what she is not able to eat, based on what God told her - CLEARLY she understood not to eat it and CLEARLY she understood she would die if she ate it. Read on - the serpent tempts her by saying 'she will become like God.' This is a VERY promising proposition, one that she obviously wanted, a proposition that could ONLY be understood if she understood consequences and cause and effect.

#2 Why is a knowledge of good and evil required for making a choice? It's not. I don't have to understand good and evil to know that if I jump off of a 500 foot cliff onto jagged rocks I will die.

#3 They didn't have a sinful nature before, because as the text states, they were naked and NOT ashamed.

#4 They made decisions as a part of their daily lives.

So your whole idea, based on the content of the text ALONE, just doesn't work.

 

[DandyAndy]

Oh No. In his eyes he was absolutely correct. In your eyes he was wrong. You yourself say that judgements are subjective.

I don't know what that means or who you are referring to. Hitler? I can make a judgement that he was wrong to murder people and strip them of their meaning because GOD declared that it is wrong to murder people. This is possible because there is an objective morality - and objective good by which we can measure good and bad - that is God.

I understand that God created us?

Indeed, God created all things.

In other words : "I made you evil. Now I will make you good. Sing glory of Christ, whom christians alone know (I do not tell the truth to any one else. I divulge my secrets to christians alone)".

This is all just your personal opinion - I would like to know why you think such things. If you got them from the Bible, I would love to see where, because I see something COMPLETELY different.

God didn't make us evil - we made ourselves evil by choosing evil every day with our actions. Genesis 1-3 explains it all.

Just go read John chapter 3 and it is obvious that salvation and Christ and truth is made available to ALL PEOPLE. It is intended for ALL PEOPLE. It was revealed to ALL PEOPLE. ALL PEOPLE have to accept it first. Christians are the ones that accept it.

My attempt was not that and is not that. I asked you for reasons, as asked in the OP.

OTOH, you seem to be assuming childishness in me. Not a problem for me, however.

I did not assume anything - I merely read your words and they conveyed a clear message to me. If I misinterpreted that message I apologize but maybe you should be a little clearer next time. I don't mind talking about this stuff - I will talk with anyone and would prefer to talk to someone that sees it differently than I - but I will not tolerate blatant, vulgar attacks on my God and myself.

I understand you don't believe what I believe - that's cool. But don't belittle it. That's not what this site is about - at least I hope not. If it is then I'm in the wrong place.

Show some respect. That's all I ask.