Nonbelievers to Hell!

[Meow Mix]

I disagree.
Given the definition of evidence as being that which provides basis for belief, then if the Bible is basis for someones belief in god, then the Bible is in fact evidence for god no matter how many times you claim otherwise.


Again, I disagree and I disagree based upon the definition of the word "evidence".


It is when one or more of those things is the basis for someones beliefs.


You ask for evidence and then am presented the Bible by someone for whom the Bible is the basis of their beliefs and no, you have no right to complain, because according the definition of the word evidence, they have provided you with evidence.

This is the part you seem unable to understand.


Except that you are asking for a candy bar, I give you a snickers, and you complain that a snickers is not a candy and that you want a candy bar.

Hmm. Well, it appears that we're just having a semantics disagreement then. You're using a layman's definition for "evidence," I'm using a philosophical definition.

I can't say that I understand the point of using a layman's definition in a philosophical conversation though. But that's your prerogative, I guess.

It's sort of as if someone were in a scientific conversation about, say, evolution... and they were using the layman's definition of "theory" as an "informed guess." However that's now how "theory" is defined in science, it's not very productive to bring such an inadequate definition to the table in the first place.

In any case, fine, I'll be more elaborate in my attempts to understand people's justifications for their beliefs by ensuring I'm asking for evidence in the sense of evidence that actually validates the truth of something with reason, analytical justification and scientific justification.

Also, every time I see one of your posts I think there's a bug on my screen because of your little bug thingy, haha! I love it.

PS: You can give me Snickers anytime! Yum

 

[Jobar]

Your aunt is not the Judge. And thus far you have not accepted Him.

No, you're wrong. In this case, Klaufi's aunt *is* judging. If she were not, she would say she didn't know the answer.

If you were asked the same question, gzusfrk, what would *your* answer be?

 

[Thief]

So God's standards aren't based on quality of character, but rather gag reflex?

And God's standards are what?

What we can be sure of is a line drawn.
Some people go to heaven...many don't.

Now...I have met a few nay sayers...of excellent character...
and as I stand before the angels, I might well speak on their behalf...favorably.

But you do understand?...I don't have control on the line drawn.
I didn't draw it.
Do you really think nay sayers...one and all....can enter into heaven?

 

[Meow Mix]

And God's standards are what?

What we can be sure of is a line drawn.
Some people go to heaven...many don't.

Now...I have met a few nay sayers...of excellent character...
and as I stand before the angels, I might well speak on their behalf...favorably.

But you do understand?...I don't have control on the line drawn.
I didn't draw it.
Do you really think nay sayers...one and all....can enter into heaven?

I've given a few analogies that you haven't really commented on that I want to see your opinion about...

Say that you have a long-lost son or daughter show up on your doorstep. They haven't believed for whatever reason that you existed up until they saw you or some evidence that you exist.

Do you then kick them out the door?

Do you give them another chance, now that they have something to make an informed decision with?

Do you douse them in gasoline and light a match?

What do you do?

 

[Father Heathen]

And God's standards are what?

Hopefully better than the standards of those who think they know his thoughts and can speak for him.

What we can be sure of is a line drawn.
Some people go to heaven...many don't.

Now...I have met a few nay sayers...of excellent character...
and as I stand before the angels, I might well speak on their behalf...favorably.

But you do understand?...I don't have control on the line drawn.
I didn't draw it.
Do you really think nay sayers...one and all....can enter into heaven?

One would hope that a just, merciful, intelligent and rational being would judge based on the honor and honesty of the person, not whether or not they've jumped through arbitrary hoops and licked his toes. Also, I doubt he would gift humanity with the ability to reason only for him to require that we abandon it.

If there was a god he would not be the petty, infantile cartoon character you portray him as.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

And God's standards are what?

That vile and wretched people will go to an eternal paradise because they believed in Christ as lord and savior, while a person who is a truly good individual will burn in hell for all eternity because this person did not choose that same path.

 

[Meow Mix]

Hopefully better than the standards of those who think they know his thoughts and can speak for him.

One would hope that a just, merciful, intelligent and rational being would judge based on the honor and honesty of the person, not whether or not they've jumped through arbitrary hoops and licked his toes. Also, I doubt he would gift humanity with the ability to reason only for him to require that we abandon it.

If there was a god he would not be the petty, infantile cartoon character you portray him as.

This ^^^^

Exactly that. Couldn't have put it better.

 

[Thief]

Hopefully better than the standards of those who think they know his thoughts and can speak for him.

One would hope that a just, merciful, intelligent and rational being would judge based on the honor and honesty of the person, not whether or not they've jumped through arbitrary hoops and licked his toes. Also, I doubt he would gift humanity with the ability to reason only for him to require that we abandon it.

If there was a god he would not be the petty, infantile cartoon character you portray him as.

I don't think of Him as petty.
I think of Him as the Almighty, and regard Him as such.
Bigger, faster, stronger, more intelligent, and greatly experienced.

Just, merciful, and rational...of course.

I suspect you have not considered.....not all believers are the same.
(I don't have a religious affiliation.)

Where's Mickiel?
This thread is starting to look like something he wrote.
No one goes to hell?
Free pass for all?

If hell is living without that one item you love most....
and that one item is supposed to be God...
then how to enter heaven while making denial?

 

[Erebus]

I was talking to my very Christian Aunt, and I told her that I follow Asatru. Now she knows me very well and really feels that I am a genuinely kind and loving person. I asked her, based on her beliefs, that even though I am not a Christian, would I go to heaven when I died, if it existed. She said no, I would go to hell for eternity. Me, a kind and loving person, would go to Hell and burn for eternity, all because I didn't accept Jesus as my saviour. That's outrageous to me, and shows how intolerant the Christian god is, at least in my Aunt's interpretation. Now my Aunt is not the "religious" Christian, she says she is a "spiritual" Christian. One who feels that have a one-on-one relationship with God, and disagrees a lot with the Church. She says the only things you must do to get to Heaven is accept you are a sinner, and accept Jesus. She is very tolerant however, it seems as if her god is not. Her loving god who shows her the way, the truth, and the light, and cares so much about her and guides her. This loving god sends another loving human to eternal Hellfire for not accepting him.

I had a similar lecture recently from my mother. She's known for a long time that Satan (or Lucifer, Set, Ahriman, whatever you want to call him) is quite a prominent figure in my pantheon. I explained that while I respect Satan and consider him a wonderful teacher I don't bow before him, my relationship is student/teacher not slave/master. Apparently this is still enough to deserve Hellfire.
You pretty much have to smile and accept that these people are evidently afraid of their own deity. Sad really, but it's each to their own at the end of the day.

 

[McBell]

In any case, fine, I'll be more elaborate in my attempts to understand people's justifications for their beliefs by ensuring I'm asking for evidence in the sense of evidence that actually validates the truth of something with reason, analytical justification and scientific justification.

Isn't that called empirical evidence?

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

You're side stepping the point.
Why choose non-believers?

Because if people can be good, with out the fear of hell keeping us to a path
they are better than those who sin, but that claim jesus has saved them

God will judge by what we have proved we are worth, not by what we claim to be.

 

[Noaidi]

Because if people can be good, with out the fear of hell keeping us to a path
they are better than those who sin, but that claim jesus has saved them

God will judge by what we have proved we are worth, not by what we claim to be.

But what about good, worthy people who are nonbelievers? How will god judge them?

 

[McBell]

But what about good, worthy people who are nonbelievers? How will god judge them?

According to Matthew, God will judge each person based upon the standards with which each person used to judge others.

 

[LuisDantas]

According to Matthew, God will judge each person based upon the standards with which each person used to judge others.

It sure makes more sense than choosing mainly due to their status as believers or non-believers. I wonder why there are those who think otherwise.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

But what about good, worthy people who are nonbelievers? How will god judge them?

That is what I said...
Because if people can be good, with out the fear of hell keeping us to a path
they are better than those who sin, but that claim jesus has saved them

God will judge by what we have proved we are worth, not by what we claim to be.

 

[Eliot Wild]

Where's Mickiel?
This thread is starting to look like something he wrote.
No one goes to hell?
Free pass for all?

Forgive me for jumping into this debate a bit late. I will admit I haven't read all the posts. But from the title of the thread and from what posts I have read, it doesn't sound as if many people are questioning God's divine right, if He exists, to establish Laws for his creation--Laws that entail punitive sentences for violations and transgressions.

However, it seems to me that some people are questioning the lack of rationality and justice in some reported images and depictions of Hell. And these questions may really not apply to everyone's concept of hell, because some depictions of hell might in fact be rational and just.

If hell is a place of separation from God for those who refuse to accept His Laws, then I personally don't find that irrational or unjust. But if Hell is a place of everlasting physicial, psychological and spiritual torture for all those who didn't accept Christ as their Lord and Savior regardless of whether they were exposed to his teachings or were capable of understanding the message, then to me that sounds quite irrational and unjust. The latter version of hell sounds downright absurd and seems unlikely, at least to me, to be the preferred 'punishment' of a perfectly just and fair God. Rationality seems to indicate that 'punishments should fit the crime'. I don't see how any crime could be so offensive to a rational conscience and arbiter that it would be deemed to require eternal torment as a sentence.

If hell is living without that one item you love most....
and that one item is supposed to be God...
then how to enter heaven while making denial?

I find this image of hell to be more likely than one of everlasting torture and torment for those who didn't 'believe' or for one who failed to be exposed to or understand God's teachings. However, I also still find some problems with it. It sounds a bit irrational to me that God wants or expects us to love Him above everything else in our lives.

Of course, I could be wrong about that, and I would never presume to know the mind of God. I can only make rational guesses. Also, I can only make claims and arguments about inconsistencies in images and depictions of God and Hell, as I did above, arguing that a perfectly just and fair God would seemingly not dole out prescribed punishments that are excessive for the given offense. But if there are those who believe that God wants us to love Him more than anything else, then I will just have to respectfully disagree.

 

[Dan4reason]

Does that really matter to you if that is what I am doing (in which I am not)? It was just an example of how a person can look at things differently.

I debunked your example and there is nothing wrong with that. I am interpreting these verses in the most consistent, logical, and practical way. These verses say that non-believers will be condemned. These verses say that very directly and clearly. These verses contradict your beliefs. Apparently, the bible is on my side.

 

[yourhopeboundheart]

If hell is a place of separation from God for those who refuse to accept His Laws, then I personally don't find that irrational or unjust.

i had a preacher tell me once that "the afterlife is when you get what you've indicated you wanted throughout your life. if you seek god and adhere to his teachings, you will be rewarded with a place that you can find unity with god and an environment rich with his standards. if you seek separation from god, you will be 'rewarded' with just that - total separation." this sounds like a concession, but of course when you're a believer this sounds worse than pain and fire and pitch-forks and teeth-gnashing. but with different priorities like i have now, it makes me pretty excited that if we find out that the angry-bible-sky-daddy is real and he chooses where we go when we die - i'll be rewarded with him finally leaving me alone.

therefore, it's not really such a bad thing to go to hell if you never wanted a heaven-bound life to begin with. rejoice!

 

[AxisMundi]

Ladies and gentlemen, what hell boils down to (something not even mentioned in the OT until Corinthians, if memory serves) is nothing more than ana ttempt to illicite a near-Pavlonian fear response to keep people in the religion, or to help with conversion.

It really only works on young children as they are being indoctrinated, and in third world areas where superstitions still reign.

 

[astarath]

The concept that fear is a response illicited response only from the young or uneducated is ridiculous . Regardless hell is not a threat but a description offered out of fairness. To live a life based on the tenet of loving one another and loving God should be enough. However, for some this reason is not sufficient. Some do not desire to live by these morals or concepts and for these people God informs them of the risk of the decision they have made. It is no different than a jail penalty for a crime. The jail is not used as a fear tactic against the general population but does exist as a warning to those who chose to break the rules.