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

[waitasec]

If God revealed Himself the way most people say they want Him to, He would be violating their right to choose and would be forcing Himself upon them

as if this ultimatum is not violating a persons right to choose by manipulating
a certain type of response.

interesting choice of words btw...

 

[wayward_teen]

If I have a child and I want them to choose to love me or not -- such that I will reward them for choosing to love me and punish them grievously for choosing not to love me -- am I really offering them a "choice" by hiding my very existence from them such that they can't even be sure I'm there or not?

Am I "forcing" myself on them to reveal myself to them, say "here I am, you can choose to love me or not?" OF COURSE NOT. I am just giving them an informed choice by revealing myself.

Edit: Furthermore, it doesn't exactly sound like a "choice" when you say "Do this, or I'll cause/allow you to suffer infinitely." That's not a "choice."

:yes:

Another interesting idea to consider is that perhaps God might send people to Hell so that they can learn, and then let theme into heaven later. IDK...

 

[URAVIP2ME]

:yes:
Another interesting idea to consider is that perhaps God might send people to Hell so that they can learn, and then let theme into heaven later. IDK...

What did Jesus learn while Jesus was in hell ? _____________
[Acts 2vs27,31; Psalm 16v10]

There is a difference between the 'biblical hell' and the 'pagan hell'.

Jesus taught the dead sleep in death.
[John 11vs11-14].

Jesus was educated in the Hebrew OT Scriptures where the Psalmist wrote that the dead are in a deep sleep-like state.
[Psalm 6v5; 13v3; 115v17; 146v4]

King Solomon, who was well known for his God-given wisdom, wrote in Ecclesiastes [9v5,10] the dead do Not know anything.

So, the 'biblical hell' [sheol] is just the common grave of mankind until they are resurrected to either heaven, or on a paradisaic earth during Jesus 1000-year reign over earth.

Everybody in the Bible's hell according to Revelation [20vs13,14] are 'delivered up' [resurrected] from the Bible's hell.
Once everybody is resurrected out of the Bible's hell,
then vacant emptied-out hell dies a symbolic out-of-existence 'second death'.

Only those destroyed forever by Jesus will have No resurrection anywhere to heaven or on earth.
-Psalm 92v7; Prov. 2v22; Rev. 19vs11,15; Isaiah 11v4; Jeremiah 25vs 31-33

 

[atanu]

God did not create evil. God created the Creation out of love - love necessitates a choice. A choice necessitates two options. The two options were, in a nut shell, good and evil. Without the choice between good and evil, if good was forced upon the Creation, then there would be no love. God made everything out of love, presented the choice to Adam and Eve, warned Adam and Eve what would happen of they chose evil and they chose evil despite God's warning. So God didn't create evil - evil is the result of the Creation with free will making the choice of evil.

I'm not sure what 'leave a scope for such a prospect' means, but I think it's explained through the fact that love and free will are only possible if rejection and evil are made available as choices.

So you have acceptance or rejection, good or bad, obedience or disobedience, submission or rebellion. Without those choices there is no love, only force.

Made available as choices to whom? God is invisible. God's image is His son, who was before all and in whom all subsist. So, who is being offered anything?

OK. This will not suit you. Let us take another route.

Suppose, just suppose, that I am such an omnipotent and omniscient being who is before all. I create you knowing well your nature, which is supposedly my creation. Knowing your fallibility fully well I then judge you for your mistakes and send you to burning hell. What opinion you will have of me?

 

[DandyAndy]

If I have a child and I want them to choose to love me or not -- such that I will reward them for choosing to love me and punish them grievously for choosing not to love me -- am I really offering them a "choice" by hiding my very existence from them such that they can't even be sure I'm there or not?

Am I "forcing" myself on them to reveal myself to them, say "here I am, you can choose to love me or not?" OF COURSE NOT. I am just giving them an informed choice by revealing myself.

Edit: Furthermore, it doesn't exactly sound like a "choice" when you say "Do this, or I'll cause/allow you to suffer infinitely." That's not a "choice."

1. God revealed Himself plenty. Just because the evidence provided isn't enough for you or Joe or whomever, doesn't mean that it isn't enough evidence. Personally I think the evidence is overwhelming.

God revealed Himself and He said just that (what I underlined in your quote) through Christ and He said it over and over. He showed countless times through creation and the OT how powerful, perfect, holy, just, loving, patient, etc He is and then in the NT through Christ, God made all those things more perfectly clear.

If God did any MORE to reveal Himself, it would be forcing Himself and the individual would no longer have a choice that read 'here I am, you can choose to love me or not.' The choice would no longer be there - the love would no longer be there.

2. 'Do that and I will cause/allow you to suffer forever' or 'do this and I will forgive/reward you and you will live forever.' I've never understood how this is not a choice. A choice involves an A and a B, yes? I see an A and a B. This fits the definition of a choice.

Is it a fair choice? That's a much better question I would love to discuss, but I think that's another thread.

But to deny the fact that it's a choice just makes zero sense to me. The consequences are laid out and yes it's OBVIOUS that one choice sucks and the other rocks...but that'd doesn't change the fact that it is a choice.

 

[DandyAndy]

This makes absolutely no sense to me. It seems rather the opposite: not to give evidence of His existence when people's eternal souls are on the line, such that they will be in disgustingly horrific agony for all eternity if they remain unconvinced of God's existence before they die, is a huge reason for God to reveal His existence to them.

It isn't unloving to give people an informed choice. In fact, it's very hateful and malicious not to give them an informed choice. It may even be infinitely malicious given that people who fail to uncover the right evidence in order to make an informed and rational decision on the matter would ostensibly suffer so incomprehensively for all eternity that we can't even describe their torment with words.

Only a very wicked monster (in fact, given the infinite nature of the suffering, the wickedest possible monster by definition) wouldn't give the evidence required for an informed decision. That isn't love. It doesn't "force" anything on anyone to give them the information they need to make a choice. You can't call it a "choice" if people aren't even sure what's being chosen, or that they're "choosing" at all. I truly, truly, truly don't understand this line of reasoning; yet I see some theists (Christians in particular) talking about it all the time. I just don't get it. Anyone else have trouble understanding this reasoning?

We have an informed choice. God provided a TON of evidence.

This is the big distinction for me, regarding your last few sentences, and I think explains why Christians use this line of thinking a lot...

1. There is evidence. Good or bad doesn't matter yet; we must agree that the evidence is present.
2. We all have access to this evidence and I think most of us are familiar with it, some much more than others, but it's freely available.
3. We all interprut this evidence differently.
4. The believer (Christian) sees the evidence and thinks 'well, it's obvious' because they have a bias towards it.
5. The unbeliever sees the evidence and thinks 'that's dumb' or 'it can't be real' or 'I can't believe that' (I hear that one ALL the time - emotional response 99% of the time in my experience) or 'I won't believe that. They have a bias against it.

How we interpret the evidence is not the fault of the evidence. It is the fault of the interpreter. God is not at fault for giving the 'wrong' evidence or 'not enough' evidence. We are at fault for not accepting the evidence or for looking at this evidence the wrong way, with bias, with personal preconceptions, with a closed mind, etc. Christians do this too, so don't think I'm only picking on unbelievers...

How can someone like Lee Strobel look at the evidence and come to one conclusion and then someone else like Christopher Hitchens look at the same evidence and come to a different conclusion? Both are highly educated, highly successful and extremely smart - both are journalists, a 'bias free' enterprise - yet both have seen arguably the same evidence and have come to radically different conclusions.

How can this be?

 

[PolyHedral]

We have an informed choice. God provided a TON of evidence.

Cite it, please.

 

[DandyAndy]

Some people do choose to do wrong. Some people choose to do right though. Why should they go to hell for eternity?

Natural consequences (the details have been explained in other posts I think, as far as sin and the requirements of justice and holiness and whatnot).

We see it in nature all the time - touch the fire and you get burnt. Eat the poison berry and you will get sick. Drop the heavy stone on your toe and it will hurt. Most of those had to be figured out by trial and error, unless someone told the individual beforehand.

This whole Hell thing isn't a trial and error thing - someone told us very clearly about it.

Rebel against holiness, sin and do whatever you want, refuse the gift of forgiveness and perfection, and you will be separated from God forever.

Flawed thinking. If I point a gun at your head and tell you to do what I say or die I'm still giving you a choice. The choice may be obvious but it's still a choice. Also 'hard' isn't in the vocabulary of an omnipotent, omniscient god.

Please explain how it is flawed thinking in the context of what we are talking about taking into account all the stuff like holiness, what we were made for, sin and everything else.

You are right to say that it is a choice, a very lopsided choice as far as which side to choose. If you ask me, that sounds like a very EASY choice.

If it takes a lifetime to decipher why would God choose to write it this way? Why not make his meaning clear and apparent?

Well it took me a few months to decipher the most important parts of the thing - and that would be Christ. I personally find it very clear and apparent. I'll always believe that if you look at it without bias, it's impossible to miss - obviously that's my opinion.

I won't deny that it takes a lifetime (or more) to completely understand the entire Bible and every parable and every historical event and every quote and every prophesy, but that is not a requirement for making the choice we are discussing.

I think it's important to try and learn as much as you can - I don't think we should make our decision and then never open the Bible again or study again - but a doctorate in eschatology and hermeneutics and Hebrew and Greek and ancient Jewish culture and whatnot are not required to make this choice presented to us.

I'm just saying that a layman can pick up the Bible and read a few books of it, look up at the sky and look within themselves and it all becomes clear and obvious.

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm just saying that a layman can pick up the Bible and read a few books of it, look up at the sky and look within themselves and it all becomes clear and obvious.

Look within themselves? That sounds like wallowing in the comfort of illusions, feelings, whims & longings.
No thanx....I'll stick with rational thought to discern what reality is all about. It ain't perfect, but it works for me.
So please tell me....what purpose would eternal damnation (with all the fire & the pain & the persecution, punishment, torment, torture & tarnation) serve?
It would be a poor deterrent, since we cannot witness the sentence being carried out.
That leaves some relationship with the supreme being itself....sadistic amusement perhaps?

 

[PolyHedral]

Natural consequences (the details have been explained in other posts I think, as far as sin and the requirements of justice and holiness and whatnot).

Death: Humans need fantasy to *be* human. To be the place where the falling angel meets the rising ape.
Susan: With tooth fairies? Hogfathers?
Death: Yes. As practice, you have to start out learning to believe the little lies.
Susan: So we can believe the big ones?
Death: Yes. Justice, mercy, duty. That sort of thing.
Susan: They're not the same at all.
Death: You think so? Then take the universe and grind it down to the finest powder, and sieve it through the finest sieve, and then show me one atom of justice, one molecule of mercy. And yet, you try to act as if there is some ideal order in the world. As if there is some, some rightness in the universe, by which it may be judged.

Where is your sieve?

 

[DandyAndy]

So, going strictly by the text, the only two possible scenarios are, 1.) God CAN abide sin in his presence, or 2.) Elijah and Enoch’s sins were redeemed before they arrived which of course begs the question I brought up before: Why then was Jesus’ sacrifice necessary? In either case – whether their sins were redeemed without Jesus or God can abide sin in his presence - why are the rest of us asked to believe in Jesus on the pain of eternal suffering?

If those are the only 2 choices, and they are the only two I can come up with, clearly I think it is choice 2. And you make a valid point. Could they have been presented with the same choice as us, concerning Christ and the redemption of sin and whatnot? I think this is likely and I think some OT people were aware of the promise of Christ.

Faith was the key back then and faith is the key now. They had to have faith in something that would happen and we have to have faith in something that did happen. Perhaps their faith in a future event made them righteous - Abraham was made righteous by his faith. How that works - faith in something that will eventually happen - I do not know.

I understand the whole thing about freewill but if he doesn’t want to impinge on my freewill to make me love him, why would he then impinge on my freewill and force me into hell? And the old standard argument about getting what you choose does not apply because I do not choose hell. I do not have enough information to make the choice to be with him or not to be with him. My choice not to believe he exists is based on a sincere and reasoned consideration of the evidence, not because I hate him or reject him or because I prefer the company of Satan over his.

But He doesn't step on your free will's toes - you lived your life and made choices every day - death and sentencing isn't another choice for you to make, it is the consequences of all your choices.

You may not choose Hell like you choose a candidate in a voting booth, but you choose it the way you choose lung cancer when you decide to smoke 2 packs of cigarettes a day for 25 years.

Only you and God can know how you have arrived at your decision and only God can judge based upon your decision. The only danger is whether or not God thinks He has presented enough evidence for everyone. But again, that's an issue between you and God. I may have more than enough evidence and you may not have enough - who's right?

Just going by what the Bible says, I don't think it matters if you academically looked everything over and don't believe or if you just hate God and don't believe - you still don't believe. Clearly God will make the decision, not me, I'm just pointing out that from what I see in the Bible, it doesn't matter why you don't believe - all that counts is that you don't believe.

So if the length of time is unknown and going strictly by text and context, on what basis would I assume he is referring to something that happened thousands of years before?

If the serpent in the Garden is indeed Satan, I think that Jewish understanding and teaching would require that what Christ said happened at some time in the past.

Though they did practice paganism (or at the very least, they did not practice Judaism), Babylon was not a religion, it was a nation/empire.

True - but I think that Babylon was used as a kind of epitome of paganism - again I only heard that somewhere so I could be wrong.

At various times throughout the history of Judaism, it was believed that tragedies and hardships such as the Babylonian exile that befell the Israelites was because they had strayed from God (if I’m not mistaken, some of the OT prophets proclaimed just that). If that is the case and if what you say is true; that Satan was behind anyone that was against the Israelites, God himself punished Israel and used Satan as his instrument of death and suffering.
All I can say at this point is that I can’t think of a single reason as to why Revelations 12 shouldn’t be read as a chronological record of events.
I believe we were talking about whether or not Satan was directly responsible for making Eve eat the fruit.
So if we have no idea of the time frame then it could very well have occurred easily and quickly, correct? I’m willing to concede that I might be wrong but are you willing to admit it could have happened quickly and easily?
If he had wanted to create us perfect then he would have done so. What applies to us also applies to God: you get what you choose. If he chooses to create us imperfect or with the option to sin then as God, he would know the inevitability of some of us choosing sin.

I am very willing to admit that I could be wrong too. I'm also very willing to admit that I am just a laymen and that it is good (very good) to test anything I say against the scriptures.

This last paragraph is a little hard for me to follow - but I think it's important. I don't understand the entire body-soul relationship very well or all the details of it or reasons of it.

I *think* you are saying that God shouldn't send an unbeliever/sinner to Hell because He knew He would get unbelieving sinners when He made humanity, yes?

If so, I think that's an excellent question. I see it as a double-edged sword - if God didn't allow for unbelievers to disbelieve, then unbelievers wouldn't have the ability to believe either. He couldn't present a choice and then only allow people to choose one of the two choices - that's not a choice. Hopefully I understood you right - it's a very good point.

Let me ask you: Would you go ahead and create mankind if you knew beforehand that you would have to consign two thirds of billions of people to eternal torment? I know I couldn’t. The price would be much too high and much too horrible for such a paltry return as having a few people love me.

I can't put myself in that position. But I'll try. First, you are assuming that the snapshot of the world as far as beliefs go would be the same throughout all of history as it is right now. Perhaps the numbers would be reversed 1,000 years ago or 2,000 years ago.

And then we have to think of all the people that never knew of Christ but confessed and knew of God and of all the children that died too young to make a decision and on and on and it very quickly becomes something only God can decide. We'd need perfect foreknowledge to get it right. But either way I agree it's a very tough decision - a decision I would want ONLY a perfect, holy, loving, fair and just God to make.

If you’re right then that means that when we sin today, it may not necessarily be because we have a sinful nature, correct? If they didn’t need it to sin then we don’t either, right?

These are excellent questions! I agree 100% with this paragraph. The sinful nature is not the reason we sin, but it is a direct influence. The sinful nature is the reason that we cannot live an entire life without sinning because that nature is such a strong influence - it's a part of the flesh. In order to live our lives without sinning once, we would have to live an unnatural life.

We sin today because of the choices we make - this sinful nature makes it easier to choose in a certain direction. A&E ate the fruit because the made a choice - they weren't influenced by an internal sinful nature that says 'oh yeah, do that bad thing, it will feel good' they were influenced by an external sinful nature that said 'surely God didn't mean that you would die - you will become like God/gods and know good & evil.'

A&E had no sinful nature - it was actually (I think) unnatural for them to sin. They were influenced and made a choice based on the influence of that influence. The sinful nature we all have is an influence and we make choices that are influenced by that influence. Does that make sense? I said influence a lot.

Here’s something to think about. What if Adam and Eve had sinned some other way that had not entailed their becoming aware of good and evil? Theoretically, if they had not eaten the fruit and had sinned some other way, we could all be sinning our wretched butts off today without knowing we were sinning, right?

Interesting. I don't think they could have sinned any other way because they didn't know what sin was. Not in the sense that Adam could have murdered Eve and not known it was bad, but rather in the sense that Adam actually didn't know what murder was, so he couldn't commit it at all.

How could we do a sinful thing if we didn't know what a sinful act is? This knowledge of good and evil opened up a plethora of new acts that I don't think A&E ever knew existed. If we never knew they existed, I don't think we'd ever do them, by accident or by choice. If we never knew what good and evil were, we would never know what rape was, so we would never commit rape either by accident or by choice, since we didn't know what it was. I think.

 

[DandyAndy]

as if this ultimatum is not violating a persons right to choose by manipulating
a certain type of response.

interesting choice of words btw...

I don't think I follow what you say - sorry. Are you saying that God trying to cultivate a certain response to this choice we are presented with is somehow violating free will? That's how I understand what you are saying...correct me if I am wrong please, I could be.

To answer what I think you are saying:

I would want God to cultivate a positive response - it would be a positive influence. I'm surrounded by things trying to cultivate a negative response - my very flesh is a negative influence. Influence doesn't make the choice for us - we still have the free will to make a choice - but that influence is always a factor.

I personally need the positive influence in my life of love, peace, hope, community, patience, understanding and all the things that perfect love is. Without it I would be hopeless.

 

[waitasec]

I don't think I follow what you say - sorry. Are you saying that God trying to cultivate a certain response to this choice we are presented with is somehow violating free will? That's how I understand what you are saying...correct me if I am wrong please, I could be.

To answer what I think you are saying:

yes it is what i am saying.

I would want God to cultivate a positive response - it would be a positive influence. I'm surrounded by things trying to cultivate a negative response - my very flesh is a negative influence. Influence doesn't make the choice for us - we still have the free will to make a choice - but that influence is always a factor.

that isn't entirely true. people are good without god cultivating a positive response
what you seem to be saying is that it doesn't matter if people are good and do good deeds throughout their life without god...their life is meaningless, they are no better than sociopaths

I personally need the positive influence in my life of love, peace, hope, community, patience, understanding and all the things that perfect love is. Without it I would be hopeless.

and you assume unbelievers are hopeless because they are just as capabe of being positively influenced by theses attributes without manipulation?
i don't get it.

 

[DandyAndy]

Made available as choices to whom? God is invisible. God's image is His son, who was before all and in whom all subsist. So, who is being offered anything?

A&E were presented with the choice to abandon all the holy goodness they intimately knew and were intertwined with - that choice was the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil. So they had both options before them - eventually they chose wrong.

Now we all have the same two choices before us - except now we are intimately aware of and intertwined with the good AND evil, which makes us unholy and imperfect - so we no longer have that relationship with God that A&E did. So now we need to be made right. We have the same options - good and evil - but now we know how much fun the evil can be and how good it can feel - so we continue to return to it like a dog to its vomit - we ultimately know it's bad but we don't care.

OK. This will not suit you. Let us take another route.

Suppose, just suppose, that I am such an omnipotent and omniscient being who is before all.

Ok, I'm scared but I'm with you so far.

I create you knowing well your nature, which is supposedly my creation.

Ok, when you say nature, do you mean sinful nature? God didn't create humanity with a sinful nature - humanity chose that sinful nature through A&E and we are all infected with it - God didn't choose to create us with it, we chose to have it become a part of us. Us today aren't guilty because of the sinful nature inside of us - we are guilty because of the sinful choices we make, choices influenced by our sinful nature. So, with that addition/correction, let us continue...

Knowing your fallibility fully well I then judge you for your mistakes and send you to burning hell.

Did you offer me a chance to be redeemed and forgiven and make that choice available to everyone that has ever lived? Is it a free choice? Is it a life changing choice? Did you tell me about it?

Let us assume the answers to all my questions are yes. Now, for you to 'send' me burning to Hell, I would have to reject that offer you presented me. Let us assume I rejected your offer of forgiveness - this is the ONLY way I could go to Hell. Let us continue...

What opinion you will have of me?

Well, my bias opinion would be frustration and regret and shame and that would manifest as hatred, rebellion and anger.

If I look at it from any other angle, I see that you made things perfect - they got screwed up - then you told me that I am screwed up, that I need some help and if I don't get this help, I will burn in Hell forever and you explain why. Then you offer me a way out of Hell. You tell me what I will get if I do accept this forgiveness and, well, it sounds pretty cool. You make this forgiveness available, you make it free, you make it easy (as far as attaining it) and in hindsight, you make it VERY obvious.

So my unbiased opinion is that 'you told me so and I didn't listen.' If you offered me a way out and I rejected it, I don't know what else you could do. Sounds pretty fair to me.

 

[waitasec]

A&E were presented with the choice to abandon all the holy goodness they intimately knew and were intertwined with - that choice was the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil. So they had both options before them - eventually they chose wrong.

they didn't know goodness...just as they didn't know evil
it was the tree of knowledge of these things....they were neither good or evil

 

[DandyAndy]

yes it is what i am saying.

:beach:

that isn't entirely true. people are good without god cultivating a positive response

By good you mean like helping the old lady across the street or saving the kid from the burning home or stopping to help the teenager on the side of the road change their flat tire, yes?

If so I agree mostly, while I think God may have an influence in some of these things, I can't really always know. I think God uses unbelievers on occasion but that's a different topic. Regardless, you are correct.

When I meant positive response I ONLY referred to the choice of personally accepting Christ. When I say positive influence I mean something positive that would lead me to or point me in the direction of accepting Christ.

Sorry, I guess I didn't make that clear.

what you seem to be saying is that it doesn't matter if people are good and do good deeds throughout their life without god...their life is meaningless, they are no better than sociopaths

Because I believe that this life is not the only life, because I believe that we were created for eternity, I agree with everything I underlined that you are saying.

When you compare an unbeliever to a sociopath you are painting me and my beliefs in a negative light and I don't agree with that. You are talking about judging by human standards and I am talking about judging by God's standards. This is a BIG difference and intermingling the two is a sneaky way to make us Christians sound like hateful, righteous bigots that look down our noses at everyone else. Not cool. (I know you don't mean to paint this picture, or maybe you do, but this is what happens.)

So let us judge by the same standard. Human standard. Of course the nice, sweet, giving, caring unbeliever is 'better' than the sociopath that killed people or molested children or whatever.

Now let us judge by the other standard. God's standard. You are the nice, sweet, giving and caring unbeliever but you sinned. You got into a fight in high school because you hated this kid with all your guts (for good reason) you had a few one-night stands in college, you cheated once on a test, you stole a magazine one time, you told some lies and hated some people and went through a period of selfishness and greed and you worshiped the Dallas Cowboys and spent more $$$ on tickets and jerseys than you did feeding the poor. There's other stuff too, but only God knows about it. So you are a sinner. The sociopath is obviously a sinner too, he killed people or molested people or whatever and certainly did other stuff we don't know about. The standard is holiness - neither of you measure up. Neither of you accepted Christ and the forgiveness - so you are both guilty sinners.

Don't forget, I'm a sinner too, I'm just a forgiven sinner. When we measure by God's standards there is no 'good' or 'better' or 'bad' or 'worse.' There is 'forgiven sinner' and there is 'unforgiven sinner.' That's it, one or the other.

and you assume unbelievers are hopeless because they are just as capabe of being positively influenced by theses attributes without manipulation?
i don't get it.

Again, see my note above, the ONLY thing I mean when I talked about positive influence and whatnot was accepting Christ. Rescuing animals and feeding the homeless and giving to charity and helping others has nothing to do with it - I'm only talking about accepting Christ.

 

[DandyAndy]

they didn't know goodness...just as they didn't know evil
it was the tree of knowledge of these things....they were neither good or evil

Wait, God is ultimate good, perfect holiness, yes? They walked and talked with Him in the garden. So they knew good - maybe they didn't know it was 'good' the way we know it. We have bad to compare our good with - the knowledge of one gives us knowledge of the other. Good, that is holiness and perfectness and God, was all they knew.

So technically you are right, they didn't know good or evil before the fruit. But all that they knew WAS good, whether they knew it was good or not. Does that make sense?

 

[Revoltingest]

Where are my manners!

Greetings!
All hail Lord Dweedle!

 

[waitasec]

When you compare an unbeliever to a sociopath you are painting me and my beliefs in a negative light and I don't agree with that. You are talking about judging by human standards and I am talking about judging by God's standards.

but you yourself said...

When I meant positive response I ONLY referred to the choice of personally accepting Christ. When I say positive influence I mean something positive that would lead me to or point me in the direction of accepting Christ.

This is a BIG difference and intermingling the two is a sneaky way to make us Christians sound like hateful, righteous bigots that look down our noses at everyone else. Not cool. (I know you don't mean to paint this picture, or maybe you do, but this is what happens.)

it is what it is
you made that judgment for yourself and you are also applying it to others

So let us judge by the same standard. Human standard. Of course the nice, sweet, giving, caring unbeliever is 'better' than the sociopath that killed people or molested children or whatever.

with this perception of non believers there cannot be an equal playing ground, that is why believers are often appointing themselves as the morally superior to unbelievers when in real life everyone is just as capable as the next guy, except of course when we are talking about sociopaths...but your belief would put sociopaths in the same boat as non believers, right?
there is no way around that...it is what it is, but you don't seem to like it so much and i can understand why.

Now let us judge by the other standard. God's standard. You are the nice, sweet, giving and caring unbeliever but you sinned. You got into a fight in high school because you hated this kid with all your guts (for good reason) you had a few one-night stands in college, you cheated once on a test, you stole a magazine one time, you told some lies and hated some people and went through a period of selfishness and greed and you worshiped the Dallas Cowboys and spent more $$$ on tickets and jerseys than you did feeding the poor. There's other stuff too, but only God knows about it. So you are a sinner. The sociopath is obviously a sinner too, he killed people or molested people or whatever and certainly did other stuff we don't know about. The standard is holiness - neither of you measure up. Neither of you accepted Christ and the forgiveness - so you are both guilty sinners.

i still stand by what i originally said:
it doesn't matter if people are good and do good deeds throughout their life without god...their life is meaningless, they are no better than sociopaths

Don't forget, I'm a sinner too, I'm just a forgiven sinner. When we measure by God's standards there is no 'good' or 'better' or 'bad' or 'worse.' There is 'forgiven sinner' and there is 'unforgiven sinner.' That's it, one or the other.
Again, see my note above, the ONLY thing I mean when I talked about positive influence and whatnot was accepting Christ. Rescuing animals and feeding the homeless and giving to charity and helping others has nothing to do with it - I'm only talking about accepting Christ.

what you seem to be saying is that in order to be in the forgiven camp is to reciprocate gods love...
a very human like trait of feeling accepted which really isn't all that impressive, it has a tendency to point towards elitism

 

[waitasec]

Wait, God is ultimate good, perfect holiness, yes?

no

They walked and talked with Him in the garden. So they knew good - maybe they didn't know it was 'good' the way we know it. We have bad to compare our good with - the knowledge of one gives us knowledge of the other. Good, that is holiness and perfectness and God, was all they knew.

quite a conundrum to solve
:yes:

So technically you are right, they didn't know good or evil before the fruit. But all that they knew WAS good, whether they knew it was good or not. Does that make sense?

nope. all they knew was indifference, innocence and freedom