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

[URAVIP2ME]

God is just. However the consequences are just. God told them not to eat of the tree and that should have been good enough.
Satan was originally an archangel (next to God the most powerful being in the universe) created by God and good.

Since there is no Scripture that says Satan was originally the archangel,
what gave you the idea he was ?

In Scripture 'archangel' is always singular,
meaning there is only one arch or chief angel.
Angel of angels, or mightiest angel of all angels.

It is Not Satan who has the archangel's voice of 1st Thess 4v16.

Rather than archangel I would think Satan is archdevil [counterfeit archangel] because isn't Satan anti-God ?

 

[waitasec]

Where does it say A&E were ignorant of good and evil?
Adam was educated in the knowledge that if he ate he would die according to Genesis 2v17.

this is the conundrum you need to solve...if you take this literally

eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil was forbidden...
a & e had no knowledge of it. they were innocent and ignorant of what constitutes evil and good. if god had his way, a & e would be committing good and evil acts without knowing it what type of acts they were committing...right? ...everything is yes except for knowledge...god intended for good and evil acts to be committed without being aware of it, because only then would you be held accountable for knowing...

so how was adam to know if he didn't have knowledge of geed and evil?

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

Ghost of a Rider-

Adam and Eve's perfect human life meant being perfect in sound mind, heart and body to be able to choose to control thoughts, feelings and actions.
They were free to grow to fulfill that tremendous perfect human potential within.

Both angels and Adam and Eve were created with the ability to have a sort of instant discernment to make up one's mind immediately toward good or bad.
They had to try to sin.
Once choosing sinning they never change back nor ever repent.
Satan and his demons nor Adam nor Eve ever expressed repentance.

Through no fault of our own we were Not born with human perfection.
Once Adam sinned he lost his perfect DNA and passed down to us imperfection.
No matter how hard we try we can not stop sinning.
Every parent knows at birth its child's leanings will be toward imperfection.
Imperfection leans toward sinning. Sin leads to death.

And how exactly did Adam and Eve's actions in the Garden affect their DNA?

It was really Satan in the garden because as we know snakes do not talk.
A superhuman power used that 'snake in the grass', so to speak, just as a ventriloquist would use his dummy. He did not have to inhabit the serpent. Just appear that way.
Snakes can be cunning in movement. Jesus advised to be cautious as serpents and innocent as doves at Matthew 10v16.

You guys keep overlooking the fact that Genesis makes it clear that the serpent in the Garden was one of the wild creatures. I've asked before and I'll ask again: Why does the Bible make the clear distinction that the serpent was one of the wild creatures if it was just Satan in disguise? No one's answered this question yet.

 

[waitasec]

And how exactly did Adam and Eve's actions in the Garden affect their DNA?



You guys keep overlooking the fact that Genesis makes it clear that the serpent in the Garden was one of the wild creatures. I've asked before and I'll ask again: Why does the Bible make the clear distinction that the serpent was one of the wild creatures if it was just Satan in disguise? No one's answered this question yet.

and yet there are some who keep on trying...
it's like watching someone squeeze water out of a rock...
beats reality TV
opcorn:

 

[URAVIP2ME]

And how exactly did Adam and Eve's actions in the Garden affect their DNA?
You guys keep overlooking the fact that Genesis makes it clear that the serpent in the Garden was one of the wild creatures. I've asked before and I'll ask again: Why does the Bible make the clear distinction that the serpent was one of the wild creatures if it was just Satan in disguise? No one's answered this question yet.

What was going to be the result if Adam disobeyed according to Gen 2v17 ?
Wasn't the penalty for disobedience going to be: death ?
However, Adam was not going to die immediately upon eating.
Fallen Adam [and all up to the time of Noah] could live up to one-thousand years before dying. [Adam lived 930 years].

Once Adam disobeyed he 'unplugged' himself from his Creator, his source of everlasting life. Just like a fan that becomes unplugged from its power source slowly winds down until it stops all together.

So, Adam, as our family head, loosing his human perfection before fathering children could only pass down his now imperfect DNA to us.
Adam , in a sense, passed down to us a sin-like birth defect that only Jesus has the cure. -Rev 22v2.

Gen [3v1] says the serpent was more subtle [KJV], or in other words,
more cautious than any other wild beasts of the field.
Gen [1v24] mentions bringing forth after its kind.
So, we have tame animal kind [domestic] or the wild kind.
In choosing between domestic or wild:
would you consider a serpent as being in the tame category or wild ?

There is nothing saying the serpent was Satan in disguise [costumed].
Satan could have thrown his voice to make it appear as if the serpent was actually talking just like a ventriloquist today could use his dummy.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

The Bible indicates that the serpent took up an adversarial postion to what God said and adversary is the meaning of the word satan. That is not necessarily a direct indication of the personage of Satan himself but it does indicate his influence.

Even if we were to go far enough out on the limb to say that the serpent took an adversarial position to God, we still have a conundrum in that the Bible says that the serpent was one of the wild creatures.

My version says "subtle" but I would translate it as "devious" instead of "cunning".

The Hebrew word used was "aruwm" which defined in Strong's as "passive participle of '`aram'; cunning (usually in a bad sense):--crafty, prudent, subtil."

Does the creature have deviousness as a species or is it just that the species is attractive to the devious? At any rate we only have one instance of the species and not much information about it. An intelligent serpent that can talk is not available now and hasn't been recorded since the Adam and Eve event. Of course that could be the result of the curse. This is akin to the debate over whether Jesus is God because God dwells within or just a man because He has the body and mind of a man. Withut the spirit within would the serpent be devious?

All I can say is, if the snake could be considered devious or cunning, it is by far not the most cunning of the wild creatures. That honor probably belongs to the raccoon. And there are other creatures more devious than the snake such as trapdoor spiders and animals that disguise themselves as surrounding foliage to catch prey.

In any case, as I've been saying, the Bible only says it was a wild creature. There's nothing in the text to suggest it was anything other than a talking one.

Yes they could be because they disobeyed God. Obedience comes by faith not by knowledge.

When I was a Christian I heard many sermons and discussions about discernment. So how can one discern sin if he doesn't even know what it is or what it looks like?

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

and yet there are some who keep on trying...
it's like watching someone squeeze water out of a rock...
beats reality TV
opcorn:

That's what keeps me coming back.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Even if we were to go far enough out on the limb to say that the serpent took an adversarial position to God, we still have a conundrum in that the Bible says that the serpent was one of the wild creatures.
The Hebrew word used was "aruwm" which defined in Strong's as "passive participle of '`aram'; cunning (usually in a bad sense):--crafty, prudent, subtil."
All I can say is, if the snake could be considered devious or cunning, it is by far not the most cunning of the wild creatures. That honor probably belongs to the raccoon. And there are other creatures more devious than the snake such as trapdoor spiders and animals that disguise themselves as surrounding foliage to catch prey.
In any case, as I've been saying, the Bible only says it was a wild creature. There's nothing in the text to suggest it was anything other than a talking one.
When I was a Christian I heard many sermons and discussions about discernment. So how can one discern sin if he doesn't even know what it is or what it looks like?

Was the serpent one of the wild creatures of the field, or was it a tame [domestic] creature?

For all we know, Satan using the serpent, could have lied to Eve that by his eating the fruit that the fruit gave him the ability to talk.

When you mentioned cunning/ crafty,etc. that made me think of Ephesians [6v11] where KJV mentions the devil's wiles, or his machinations or schemes.
It did not have to be the 'most cunning' to serve Satan's purpose.
The serpent was also a cautious creature.- Matthew 10v16;Gen 3v1

 

[krsnaraja]

and yet there are some who keep on trying...
it's like watching someone squeeze water out of a rock...
beats reality TV
opcorn:

They just keep on squeezing & squeezing something hard as a rock. I wonder why?

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

Was the serpent one of the wild creatures of the field, or was it a tame [domestic] creature?

The text says it was one of the wild creatures so you tell me.

For all we know, Satan using the serpent, could have lied to Eve that by his eating the fruit that the fruit gave him the ability to talk.

The text doesn't indicate in any way that the serpent ate the fruit.

When you mentioned cunning/ crafty,etc. that made me think of Ephesians [6v11] where KJV mentions the devil's wiles, or his machinations or schemes.
It did not have to be the 'most cunning' to serve Satan's purpose.
The serpent was also a cautious creature.- Matthew 10v16;Gen 3v1

This really isn't about which creature is the most cunning. The point is, as I've already said, the Bible points out the distinction that (right or wrong) the serpent is the most cunning of the wild creatures. If the serpent in the Garden was really Satan and it was his wiles that tempted Adam and Eve then the serpent being the most cunning of the wild creatures is irrelevant and had nothing to do with their temptation, understand?

 

[URAVIP2ME]

The text says it was one of the wild creatures so you tell me.
The text doesn't indicate in any way that the serpent ate the fruit.
This really isn't about which creature is the most cunning. The point is, as I've already said, the Bible points out the distinction that (right or wrong) the serpent is the most cunning of the wild creatures. If the serpent in the Garden was really Satan and it was his wiles that tempted Adam and Eve then the serpent being the most cunning of the wild creatures is irrelevant and had nothing to do with their temptation, understand?

OK I'll bite, wild or tame? Who has a serpent as a safe domestic pet?
So, I would put him on the wild side.

Eve 'saw' the fruit was good for eating.[Gen 3v6]
Even would have seen that with her own eyes.
She could have seen various animals eating without harm.
So, although it does not say the serpent ate, it also does not say he didn't.
Either way Eve 'saw'.......

Is a Lion a tame or wild creature?
According to 1st Peter [5v8] Satan is likened to a roaring lion seeking to devour someone.

As far as their temptation, James shed's light on the subject because at James [1vs14,15 ] James brings to our attention that each one is drawn out by their own desire. Not another person's desire. Satan can not make anyone go against their own desire.

 

[waitasec]

OK I'll bite, wild or tame? Who has a serpent as a safe domestic pet?
So, I would put him on the wild side.

really...?
plenty.
the snake looks cunning, that is why the snake was used as a metaphor to represent cunning


still waiting for you to respond to
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2629911-post862.html

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

OK I'll bite, wild or tame? Who has a serpent as a safe domestic pet?
So, I would put him on the wild side.

You're looking at this from the wrong perspective for this discussion and trying to answer a question that wasn't even asked. The question is not about whether the serpent is the most cunning of the wild creatures or about whether it was wild as opposed to domesticated. It's about whether or not it was a cunning wild creature as opposed to just an animal being possessed and controlled by the devil.

So again, if the serpent in the garden was just a snake possessed by Satan then Adam and Eve were tempted by Satan's cunning, not the serpent's. The serpent's cunning - even if he is the most cunning of the wild creatures - had nothing to do with their temptation. So why was the distinction made?

Eve 'saw' the fruit was good for eating.[Gen 3v6]
Even would have seen that with her own eyes.
She could have seen various animals eating without harm.
So, although it does not say the serpent ate, it also does not say he didn't.
Either way Eve 'saw'.......

The text also doesn't say that the serpent was partial to show tunes. So do we then assume that the serpent was singing I'm Just Wild About Harry while tempting Eve? There's a million things the Bible doesn't say leaving it wide open to interpretation. That's why we have to go on what it does say.

As far as their temptation, James shed's light on the subject because at James [1vs14,15 ] James brings to our attention that each one is drawn out by their own desire. Not another person's desire. Satan can not make anyone go against their own desire.

This actually reinforces what I told DandyAndy earlier in the discussion. Namely, that Adam and Eve already had the desire to disobey God and to know good and evil even though they didn't even know what good and evil were and thus that disobedience to God was a sin. The only thing that changed by their eating the fruit was that they became aware that it was a sin. So we have to ask where the desire came from if not from being created with it.

If they already had the desire to sin that they were created with by God and were not given an understanding of good and evil by him from the outset that giving in to this desire was a sin, who's really at fault here?

 

[URAVIP2ME]

The desire that Adam and Eve had came from themselves according to James [1vs13-15] that each one is drawn out by their own desire.
Satan can not force anyone against their own will.

Think about Satan and his demons. How long were they existing in heaven before they fell away ? They were created with angelic perfection until they decided to follow Satan.
Not all angels followed Satan. Jesus did not follow Satan.

Eve was deceived according to 1st Timothy 2v14.

Satan played on Eve by telling the first lie [Gen3v4] that Eve would Not die.

The tree stood for the law.
You eat you die.
So, how many trees are there on earth?________
Out of all the trees on earth God had only one tree.

If your generous neighbor told you that you could take as much fruit off of his many fruit trees as you wanted 'except' for only one certain tree, would you consider your neighbor as being unreasonable ?
Would you consider your neighbor to be at fault if you disobeyed your neighbor by taking [stealing] some of his fruit off of the one single tree he told you not to take ?

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

The desire that Adam and Eve had came from themselves according to James [1vs13-15] that each one is drawn out by their own desire.

If that's true then it means, as I've said, that the eating of the fruit changed nothing as far as our nature and predilection to sin. We today have no more of a sinful nature than Adam and Eve did and we didn't get our sinful nature from their eating of the fruit. Basically this means that the story is irrelevant and their eating the fruit had nothing to do with why we sin.

The tree stood for the law.
You eat you die.
So, how many trees are there on earth?________
Out of all the trees on earth God had only one tree.

If your generous neighbor told you that you could take as much fruit off of his many fruit trees as you wanted 'except' for only one certain tree, would you consider your neighbor as being unreasonable ?
Would you consider your neighbor to be at fault if you disobeyed your neighbor by taking [stealing] some of his fruit off of the one single tree he told you not to take ?

Would I be at fault if I didn't understand that taking the fruit would be a sin?

 

[That Dude]

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?

Anyone can be a christian, but the qualification to be a (Christ)ian, is to accept Christ.
Muslims believe you have to follow Muhammad but I didn't notice you telling them how angry they make you or point out that muhammed is a he/she...
They're also more selective about who is and isn't a muslim. Come to think of it, wiccans are really selective about who a "true" wiken is. Something about who's family is ancient and who's isn't. So they're actually more judgemental then your average Christian. Because we want to see "everyone" saved.

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..

That sounds more like a matter of opinion then fact.

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

You sound like a good person. All except your aparent bias towards Christians you know.
Regardless, you're still not participating in rule #1. Accept Christ as your Lord and savior.
Would you expect a muslim or wiccan to accept you as one of them if you refuse their basic religious practices that actually makes you one of them?
I'm not sure you could find any religion that will accept a person who doesn't accept their beliefs.

I guess they judge me wicked because I don't go to Church?

Nah, I just told you why. You're wicked, get over it. Any religion on the face of the planet uses words like "wicked" to describe nonbelievers. Don't like it? Stop hanging out with them, its that simple. If you want to find God, I suggest you find him on your own terms. Getting moody about what you see other people doing only keeps you from making an honest judgement free of bias.

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.

You sound like you've met God before. Next time he tells you he doesn't send people to hell, tell him I said hi. Thanks!
Unless that's your personal opinion? In that case, then you're limiting God to your own imagination and not allowing for anything real to happen. Which in essence means that you're perfectly happy being your own god. In that case, say hi to yourself for me.

 

[Muffled]

and yet there are some who keep on trying...
it's like watching someone squeeze water out of a rock...
beats reality TV
opcorn:

It has been done.

Being more cunning that a beast of the field describes man as well. Does that make man a beast of the field? So the idea that the Serpent was simply a beast of the field doesn't wash.

 

[Muffled]

Since there is no Scripture that says Satan was originally the archangel,
what gave you the idea he was ?

In Scripture 'archangel' is always singular,
meaning there is only one arch or chief angel.
Angel of angels, or mightiest angel of all angels.

It is Not Satan who has the archangel's voice of 1st Thess 4v16.

Rather than archangel I would think Satan is archdevil [counterfeit archangel] because isn't Satan anti-God ?

True. It is mere supposition that a being that powerful must have been given that power by God. There is this verse: Mt 25:41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into the eternal fire which is prepared for the devil and his angels:

He is an Archangel since he has authority over angels.

So is captain but there can be many captains. Also there are many archdioceses.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

It has been done.

Being more cunning that a beast of the field describes man as well. Does that make man a beast of the field? So the idea that the Serpent was simply a beast of the field doesn't wash.

Then why does the Bible say it was a beast of the field?

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Then why does the Bible say it was a beast of the field?

The Hebrew word behemah' refers to usually domestic or tame animals.
But also on occasion to beast or wild beast.
In other words behemah' can be rendered as referring to:
domestic or tame animals, beasts, or live stock and cattle.
[Gen 1v26; 9v10; 34v23; Psalm 107v38].

The Hebrew term *chaiyah' [living creature] is used to refer to wild beasts
or wild animals such as at Gen. 1v28; 3v14; Isaiah 56v9.

[Greek term zo'on [living creature] is also rendered as animal.]
- Rev 4v7; 2 Peter 2v12.

The Hebrew word re'mes denotes moving animals including creeping ones
which comes from the root ramas' meaning to move; to creep.
Gen. 6v20; Eze 8v10; Gen. 1v28.

So, the serpent of Gen. [3v1] was a living creature [*chaiyah'] meaning:
a living soul that was not a human- Numbers 31v28.