• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

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

URAVIP2ME

Veteran Member
The body is not the soul. It`s a piece of clothing that needs to be replaced by another piece of cloth. Depends on what color you want in the next life. If you were a blue colored dress maybe in the next life you have chosen say a yellow color. The soul exists eternally as well the great soul- the soul`s eternal companion.

Who is saying the body is the soul ?___________

According to Scripture the soul [like Adam] was not designed to be immortal.
The immortal can not die. The immortal can not be destroyed.
Adam died because Adam was not immortal.
Adam could only continue living if obedient to God.
Adam's soul would die when he sinned.- Ezekiel 18vs4,20
The mortal soul can be destroyed according to Acts 3v23.

All of Adam [outside and inside] made Adam a living soul.

Adam would Not have worn out like a piece of worn-out clothing because,
if obedient, Adam would have had eternal life, or everlasting life, on a paradisaic earth forever.

The 'next life' is only the God-given life through the resurrection by Jesus.
Some are resurrected to heaven in a 'spirit body' as Jesus was resurrected.
The majority will be resurrected on earth in 'earthly bodies' during Jesus messianic 1000-year reign over earth. That is how Jesus fulfills the promise to Abraham that all families and all nations of the earth will be blessed.
-Genesis 22vs17,18; Revelation 22v2
 

waitasec

Veteran Member
Adam was alive before he ate the fruit.
The last word in Genesis 2v7 is the word: 'soul'.

After Adam received the breath of life, then, Adam became a living soul.

Before receiving the breath of life Adam was not alive. [Job 33v4]

So, at death Adam ceased to breathe and Adam became a dead soul.

Before receiving the breath of life Adam did not exist.
After Adam loosing the breath of life Adam again did not exist.

this remains to be moot.
 
Yes. Adam was right there, there in the garden, but not right there side by side with Eve at the time Eve ate.

Where does it indicate that he was not right beside her? And what difference would it make anyway? Are you really trying to tell me that just because he may have been a few feet away that he was not deceived by the serpent? Seriously?

Of course they were allowed to choose to 'obey or disobey' eating.
Choose to obey and live forever.
Choose to disobey and die, or be dead forever.
So if they were allowed to make a choice of this magnitude between immortality and death and furthermore, a choice that God feared (he did not want Adam and Eve to be like the gods, knowing good from evil), what could possibly be more grave that God would not allow them to do it and appoint a protector?

'Stuff' from the Scriptures.
Every detail is not given. Some places the Scriptures are silent.
That does not make the Bible wrong.
The issue for me in asking the question is not whether the Bible is right or wrong but where these ideas come from since I've never read them in the Bible and I've never heard any other Christians express them.

It seems to me that you take a lot of interpretive license with the million things the Bible doesn't say. What you seem to do would be akin to my saying there were aliens in the Garden of Eden because the Bible does not specifically say there were none there.
 

URAVIP2ME

Veteran Member
Where does it indicate that he was not right beside her? And what difference would it make anyway? Are you really trying to tell me that just because he may have been a few feet away that he was not deceived by the serpent? Seriously?
So if they were allowed to make a choice of this magnitude between immortality and death and furthermore, a choice that God feared (he did not want Adam and Eve to be like the gods, knowing good from evil), what could possibly be more grave that God would not allow them to do it and appoint a protector?
The issue for me in asking the question is not whether the Bible is right or wrong but where these ideas come from since I've never read them in the Bible and I've never heard any other Christians express them.
It seems to me that you take a lot of interpretive license with the million things the Bible doesn't say. What you seem to do would be akin to my saying there were aliens in the Garden of Eden because the Bible does not specifically say there were none there.

Please notice Genesis [3v15] is not talking about a literal serpent.

Gen [3v6] says: the woman saw. Not that they saw.
Eve partakes not they partook.
'and' Adam does not take, but Eve gives to her man to eat.
They were not partaking together but after Eve ate [and] she gave to Adam.
2nd Cor. [11v3] says the serpent beguiled Eve through his cunning.
Adam is not mentioned as being seduced or beguiled by the serpent.
Romans [5v12] squarely places the blame on the man Adam.
1st Tim [2v14] Adam was not deceived. Eve was deceived.

Remember: the serpent assured Eve that God was the liar.
He deceived her into thinking she would Not die. [Gen 3v4]

Knowing good and evil would place or put the self-determining factor on them.
They lost God's guidance and direction and they were left on their own to determine or decide what was good or not. They chose independence from God as the best way to successfully govern themselves. Ever since, has mankind successfully directed his step?
 

waitasec

Veteran Member
Please notice Genesis [3v15] is not talking about a literal serpent.

yes it is...if you take this account literally.

you just can't say this snippet is metaphorical and this snippet is literal...
unless you want to create your own theology
 
Please notice Genesis [3v15] is not talking about a literal serpent.

Given verse one that says the serpent was the most cunning of all the creatures God had made, what indication is there in verse fifteen that God is not talking to a literal serpent?

Gen [3v6] says: the woman saw. Not that they saw.
Eve partakes not they partook.
If Adam did not also see that the fruit [FONT=&quot]was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, why did he eat it?[/FONT]

'and' Adam does not take, but Eve gives to her man to eat.
They were not partaking together but after Eve ate [and] she gave to Adam.
He took it from Eve didn't he?

2nd Cor. [11v3] says the serpent beguiled Eve through his cunning.
Adam is not mentioned as being seduced or beguiled by the serpent.
He was seduced and beguiled by somebody or he wouldn't have eaten it.

Romans [5v12] squarely places the blame on the man Adam.
1st Tim [2v14] Adam was not deceived. Eve was deceived.

It makes no sense to place the blame squarely on the one not deceived. And whether by Satan or Eve, Adam was deceived.

Remember: the serpent assured Eve that God was the liar.
He deceived her into thinking she would Not die. [Gen 3v4]

Adam must have been deceived too else, again, he wouldn't have eaten it.

Knowing good and evil would place or put the self-determining factor on them.
They lost God's guidance and direction and they were left on their own to determine or decide what was good or not. They chose independence from God as the best way to successfully govern themselves. Ever since, has mankind successfully directed his step?
They were being deceived, remember? Ergo, they didn't understand that they were choosing independence, they thought they were simply choosing to know good and evil.
 
Last edited:

cablescavenger

Well-Known Member
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.

Heres a Scenario.
(None of this is real it is made up as an example)

Jeff is a 43 year old man with 3 Kids aged 3,9 and 16 and a 39 year old Wife named Brenda.

Jeff is driveing home from work on a rainy night and a Truck who is driveing too fast lose's control and Smashes into Jeff's car. Killing him Instantly.

The Driver of the Truck is Arrested, Trialed and Sent to Prison for Manslaughter.

Jeff was a loveing Husband and Father and a great Friend to many.

Jeff was involved in many Charitys and raised lots of money to help Kids with disabilitys.

Jeff was an Athiest and did not believe in any god.

Uh Oh! Jeff did not believe God existed! Any Church Zealot would condemn him to Hell for this ungodly Sin...

My point is I cannot imagine God saying this.

Jeff. " But im not a Bad Person! ive made mistakes in life like a normal Human being but ive given most of my life to help people! "

God. " To bad you didn't believe in me so now you will burn in Hell for all Eternity "
---
God would not Punish anyone for being a Good Person. Never.
Shame on you for believing he would.
---
And for anyone who is too lazy to read this the Question is pretty much.

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

There have been many religions, and many die out. To keep a religion going it needs to grow. This is a carrot and stick approach to induce recruitment.
 

URAVIP2ME

Veteran Member
Given verse one that says the serpent was the most cunning of all the creatures God had made, what indication is there in verse fifteen that God is not talking to a literal serpent?
If Adam did not also see that the fruit [FONT=&quot]was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, why did he eat it?[/FONT]
He took it from Eve didn't he?
He was seduced and beguiled by somebody or he wouldn't have eaten it.
It makes no sense to place the blame squarely on the one not deceived. And whether by Satan or Eve, Adam was deceived.
Adam must have been deceived too else, again, he wouldn't have eaten it.
They were being deceived, remember? Ergo, they didn't understand that they were choosing independence, they thought they were simply choosing to know good and evil.

First clue in verse one [Gen 3v1] is that the serpent 'talked'.
An actual animal would not talk on its own, so the animal would be used as a go between or medium of communication by another.
Verse 14 mentions 'the' specific serpent and actual serpents do not live on dust. Whereas the serpent of verse 14 will eat dust all the days of his life.
Eating nothing but dust causes: death.
So, this serpent would, as we might say, "bite the dust" in death.
[His death would be the 'second death' of Rev. 21v8]
A literal serpent in verse 15 would not have a 'seed' that could bruise the heel of the figurative woman's seed.

Eating in itself is desirable and proper. But that one forbidden tree symbolized that by eating from it a person would come to a wisdom or a knowledge that would enable himself to choose, or decide for himself, what is good or what is evil for man or mankind. The 'serpent' was making an appeal, or a desire, that they would, without impunity, be elevated in a supposed higher intellectual knowledge or the freedom of successfully being independent without God's guidance or direction to successfully decide what they thought was good or evil over what God thought was good or bad.

The 'serpent' [aka murderer] did not have their welfare at heart since he knew the fatal consequence of eating.
[A literal serpent would not have had that knowledge]
Adam [Gen 2v17] also knew that fatal consequence.
So, why did Adam eat ? Adam had two choices:
Whether to listen to God's 'voice' [Gen 3v17] or listen to Eve's 'voice'.
According to Gen [3v17] Adam chose to listen to his wife's 'voice'.
Adam deliberately chose to 'listen' to his wife Eve's 'voice'.
By listening to Eve, Adam deliberately conformed himself to Eve's way or Eve's will over God's way or God's will.
Adam deliberately chose to turn aside from God's divine law in favor of Eve.

If the 'shoe was on the other foot' and Adam ate first, that did not mean Eve had to conform herself to him. Eve would have then had the same choice to listen to God's 'voice' or listen to her husband's 'voice'.

1st Timothy [2v14] says Adam was Not deceived, but the woman was throughly deceived and came to be in transgression. Eve acknowledges at Gen [3v13] that the serpent beguiled or deceived ME. Eve does not say US.
 
First clue in verse one [Gen 3v1] is that the serpent 'talked'.
An actual animal would not talk on its own, so the animal would be used as a go between or medium of communication by another.

Then for the hundredth time, why does it say the serpent is the most cunning of the wild creatures?

Verse 14 mentions 'the' specific serpent and actual serpents do not live on dust. Whereas the serpent of verse 14 will eat dust all the days of his life.
I don't think I'd be going too far out on the limb to say that this is most likely a metaphor simply meaning that the serpent will spend its existence crawling on the ground.

A literal serpent in verse 15 would not have a 'seed' that could bruise the heel of the figurative woman's seed.
Sure he would. Where do you think many people are bitten?

Eating in itself is desirable and proper. But that one forbidden tree symbolized that by eating from it a person would come to a wisdom or a knowledge that would enable himself to choose, or decide for himself, what is good or what is evil for man or mankind.
They apparently didn't need wisdom or knowledge to choose to eat from the tree and decide what was right for them. This is the main problem with this story I've pointed out before; they had to commit sin to be aware of sin. So being aware of sin had no effect on our propensity to sin.

Adam [Gen 2v17] also knew that fatal consequence.
So, why did Adam eat ? Adam had two choices:
Whether to listen to God's 'voice' [Gen 3v17] or listen to Eve's 'voice'.
According to Gen [3v17] Adam chose to listen to his wife's 'voice'.
Adam deliberately chose to 'listen' to his wife Eve's 'voice'.
By listening to Eve, Adam deliberately conformed himself to Eve's way or Eve's will over God's way or God's will.
Adam deliberately chose to turn aside from God's divine law in favor of Eve.

If the 'shoe was on the other foot' and Adam ate first, that did not mean Eve had to conform herself to him. Eve would have then had the same choice to listen to God's 'voice' or listen to her husband's 'voice'.
What's the difference between Adam listening to his wife's voice over God's and Eve listening to the serpent's voice over God's?
 

URAVIP2ME

Veteran Member
Then for the hundredth time, why does it say the serpent is the most cunning of the wild creatures?
I don't think I'd be going too far out on the limb to say that this is most likely a metaphor simply meaning that the serpent will spend its existence crawling on the ground.
Sure he would. Where do you think many people are bitten?
They apparently didn't need wisdom or knowledge to choose to eat from the tree and decide what was right for them. This is the main problem with this story I've pointed out before; they had to commit sin to be aware of sin. So being aware of sin had no effect on our propensity to sin.
What's the difference between Adam listening to his wife's voice over God's and Eve listening to the serpent's voice over God's?

No difference in 'listening to the voice' if the shoe was on the other foot, but the difference was that Adam did Not have to go along with Eve.

Most cunning or most cautious would be its characteristic such as with Jesus words of Matthew [10v16] where Jesus says to prove to be cautious as serpents..... Be cautious in conduct among wolf-like opposers.

Those opposers often proved to be the Pharisees who Jesus likened to serpents and even offspring of vipers at Matthew 23v33; John 8v44.

Besides cunning and cautious at Job [26v13] also mentions the serpent's movement or motion. It's bite at Ecc [10v8] and its hiding place in stone walls at Amos [5v19].

Genesis [3v15] does Not say bitten but would bruise.
Bruise in the heel, or a heel wound that does Not have to be life threatening. Whereas a bruise to the head could be a fatal wound, or as Romans [16v20] ties in that Satan will be crushed under Jesus feet.
Crushed in that Jesus will destroy Satan.-Hebrews 2v14 B.

Why would A&E have to commit sin to know sin.
'Do not eat or you will die' was simple. Eat = die.
You eat you sinned.
You eat you disobeyed.
You eat you are a law breaker.

If Adam's eating had no effect on us we would have a sinless nature.
If Adam's eating had no effect on us would would not die.

Adam's eating was followed up by their trying to cover with fig leaves,
and hiding themselves is also evidence of alienation from God.
Something had already taken place deep inside of them affecting their hearts and minds right away, or some sort of internal upheaval in their consciences, working like a revealing built-in lie detector.
In this case their consciences were 'accusing' them of wrongdoing,
thus making it impossible for them to hide or conceal their criminal act.
We all follow after their damaged or then imperfect fleshly line.
So, the 'law of heredity' [Adamic sin] is passed down to all of us.
Meaning we all have an inborn leaning or inclination toward wrong doing.
A king gives orders. Sin still reigns as King.- Romans 5v21,12.

If we could stop sinning we would not die.
We can not resurrect oneself or another.
That is why we need someone who can do that for us.
Jesus can and he will.
 

URAVIP2ME

Veteran Member
their off spring....

Offspring.....but in a symbolic sense Not literal children.
Because the children of God and children of the devil are evident by their works according to 1st John 3 vs10-12; John 8v44.

So, over the centuries those who have Satan's spirit like the religious leaders of Jesus day being offspring of vipers. Matt 23v33.

Job [1vs6-12; 2vs1-5] shows us how Satan makes accusations about everyone's integrity not just Job's in whether to support God's sovereignty or not.

God's promised 'seed' would come through Abraham [Gen 15v5; 22vs15-18]
That promised 'seed' would prove to be Jesus, who through Jesus, all families of earth and all nations of the earth will be blessed.
Blessed with healing or curing. -Rev 22v2.
Healed or cured from all un-healthy physical imperfection and inherited sinful imperfection under Jesus messianic 1000-year reign over earth.
 

waitasec

Veteran Member
Offspring.....but in a symbolic sense Not literal children.
Because the children of God and children of the devil are evident by their works according to 1st John 3 vs10-12; John 8v44.

So, over the centuries those who have Satan's spirit like the religious leaders of Jesus day being offspring of vipers. Matt 23v33.

Job [1vs6-12; 2vs1-5] shows us how Satan makes accusations about everyone's integrity not just Job's in whether to support God's sovereignty or not.

God's promised 'seed' would come through Abraham [Gen 15v5; 22vs15-18]
That promised 'seed' would prove to be Jesus, who through Jesus, all families of earth and all nations of the earth will be blessed.
Blessed with healing or curing. -Rev 22v2.
Healed or cured from all un-healthy physical imperfection and inherited sinful imperfection under Jesus messianic 1000-year reign over earth.
so you take this account metaphorically at your convenience then...?
 

URAVIP2ME

Veteran Member
Ah, so the demon created people too?

Not creating or having literal offspring.
'Creator' is singular. [Rev 4v11] Satan is Not a creator but a creation.

When ancient Israel turned their backs on God, Isaiah [57v4] called the Israelites as 'children of transgression'. They were not literal children.

Just as the 'children' of 2nd Peter [2v14] were also not literal children, but called as 'accursed children' because of behaving as the devil would behave.
Whereas, in contrast at 1st Peter [1v14], righteous conduct would show them as being 'obedient children'.

What manifests the difference then between the 'children of God' and the 'children of the devil' is Not who created them, but, as 1st John [3v10] says is: behavior. The one that does not behave in love for his 'spiritual' brother,
and does not love righteousness, is not a 'child of God'.

John [1v12] also wrote those that received Jesus could become 'spiritual' children aka 'sons of God' or Jesus 'spiritual' brothers. [Romans 8v16,17]

John [13v33] writes that Jesus addressed the grown disciples as 'little children'.
-Hebrews 2v13

Romans [9vs7,8] mentions just being 'children of flesh' does not automatically make them 'children of God'. So, it is not talking about creating or having literal children but spiritual children. Those 'spiritual children' thought of themselves as 'children of promise' [Gal 3vs26,28; 4v31].

Also, Paul refers to the Corinthian congregation as: 'my children' because they were spiritual children. 'Children of light' if they remain in spiritual light.
-2nd Cor 6vs13,14; 1st Cor 14v20; Eph 5v8]

Satan did not remain in spiritual light as a created angelic son of God,
but choose of his own free will to turn himself into a Satan and a Devil.
Those that follow Satan's behavior [chip off the old block]
are as if Satan was their father.
-John 8v44.
 

Heathen Hammer

Nope, you're still wrong
First clue in verse one [Gen 3v1] is that the serpent 'talked'.
An actual animal would not talk on its own, so the animal would be used as a go between or medium of communication by another.

One hypothesis I've heard is that the serpent in question, ate of the Tree of Knowledge first. That's why he could talk :D
 
No difference in 'listening to the voice' if the shoe was on the other foot, but the difference was that Adam did Not have to go along with Eve.

And Eve did not have to go along with the serpent. So again, what's the difference? They both knew that God forbade them to eat from the tree so what is the one distinguishing factor or element that makes Adam listening to Eve worse than Eve listening to the serpent to the point that Adam solely gets the blame? Furthermore, when God found out what happened, he asked Eve "What is this you have done?", not Adam.

Most cunning or most cautious would be its characteristic such as with Jesus words of Matthew [10v16] where Jesus says to prove to be cautious as serpents..... Be cautious in conduct among wolf-like opposers.

Those opposers often proved to be the Pharisees who Jesus likened to serpents and even offspring of vipers at Matthew 23v33; John 8v44.

Besides cunning and cautious at Job [26v13] also mentions the serpent's movement or motion. It's bite at Ecc [10v8] and its hiding place in stone walls at Amos [5v19].
So again (for the hundredth time) what makes the wild animal serpent's "cautiousness" significant enough to be mentioned if it had nothing to do with what transpired?

Genesis [3v15] does Not say bitten but would bruise.
Bruise in the heel, or a heel wound that does Not have to be life threatening. Whereas a bruise to the head could be a fatal wound, or as Romans [16v20] ties in that Satan will be crushed under Jesus feet.
Crushed in that Jesus will destroy Satan.-Hebrews 2v14 B.
First, neither I, you nor the Bible say anything about the biting or bruising of the heel being life threatening, that's irrelevant. Second, "bruise" means bruise, not crush. If bruise can mean crush one way then it can mean crush in the other. I.E., the serpent will crush the heel of the seed of Eve.

Why would A&E have to commit sin to know sin.
'Do not eat or you will die' was simple. Eat = die.
You eat you sinned.
You eat you disobeyed.
You eat you are a law breaker.
What I should have said was that they didn't need to know sin to sin. Therefore, if we can sin without knowing sin then how does knowing sin change anything?

Adam's eating was followed up by their trying to cover with fig leaves,
and hiding themselves is also evidence of alienation from God.
It doesn't say anything about their being or feeling alienated from God, it only says they realized they were naked. Given the OT and Christian obsession with sex, homosexuality and nudity, this tells me that after they ate the fruit, they - as the text clearly says - became aware that they were naked and were ashamed.

We all follow after their damaged or then imperfect fleshly line.
So, the 'law of heredity' [Adamic sin] is passed down to all of us.
Meaning we all have an inborn leaning or inclination toward wrong doing.
You still haven't adequately explained what exactly happened to their flesh or how exactly their genes were changed and passed down to us. If you can't explain it scientifically then it's nothing more than a matter of faith and has no basis in fact.
 
Top