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

[DandyAndy]

telling someone who is innocent doesn't understand what consequences mean, so it was useless to tell adam of the consequence of death...
unless god holds innocence accountable.

Surely Adam and Eve understood consequences - action and reaction - they were gardeners, charged with tending and upkeep of what they had been given.

love is not depended on it being reciprocated.

You are correct - true love is offered up whether it will be accepted or rejected - God offers it, knowing many will reject it. But He still offers it freely to all and those that choose it benefit from it.

So love between two people IS dependent upon it being reciprocated - I love my wife and she loves me - our relationship is dependent upon a reciprocated love between the two of us.

"19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them...."
a fallacy no less...
since it's plain to them why question?

Because they are wicked, they don't want to see it. Back up to 18 and it clearly says that 'they suppress the truth by their wickedness.' God makes it clear to them, but their own love of evil keeps it hidden. If they stopped loving evil, they would see it plain again.

It's dangerous to read just one verse because 18 and 19 are 1 single sentence. We should really read the whole chapter, understand who is writing, who he is writing it to and for what reasons.

 

[waitasec]

How and when did God's laws change in the instance of Enoch?

enoch didn't die.

Okay, unfortunately, when a baby, who is innocent, jumps off a sky scraper it usually dies as a consequence/punishment of its own actions in attempting to break the law of gravity. Man can not be saved in ignorance.

you seem to look at punishment as an exclusive consequence, that isn't always the case...a consequence can be good.
the laws of music theory are broken all the time and we get really great songs by doing that.
how does the baby know that it is breaking any laws?
[/quote]
Check this video out. I think it describes God's Justice and Mercy really well.
If you watch it you will see how God is just and how the laws of both Justice and Mercy can both be met
without canceling each other out.
[youtube]9VTMWVpzx4M[/youtube]
‪Mormon Doctrine: The Mediator - Mormon Theology‬‏ - YouTube[/QUOTE]

sure. and i'll get back to you via PM, cool?

 

[waitasec]

Surely Adam and Eve understood consequences - action and reaction - they were gardeners, charged with tending and upkeep of what they had been given.

that has nothing to do with the KNOWLEDGE of good and evil.
they had knowledge of gardening...

You are correct - true love is offered up whether it will be accepted or rejected - God offers it, knowing many will reject it. But He still offers it freely to all and those that choose it benefit from it.

would you cease to love your son if your son didn't trust you?
(do you have kids?)

So love between two people IS dependent upon it being reciprocated - I love my wife and she loves me - our relationship is dependent upon a reciprocated love between the two of us.

love is not dependent on it being reciprocated with your children.

Because they are wicked, they don't want to see it. Back up to 18 and it clearly says that 'they suppress the truth by their wickedness.' God makes it clear to them, but their own love of evil keeps it hidden. If they stopped loving evil, they would see it plain again.

and what is the manifestation of their wickedness?
skepticism...
remember, there was a lot of strife between the jews and the new christian movement when this was written ( a historical fact). the pharisees were the christians biggest hurdle to overcome in order to change judaism into christianity...
those who were the wicked...were the one that suppressed the truth of jesus.

It's dangerous to read just one verse because 18 and 19 are 1 single sentence. We should really read the whole chapter, understand who is writing, who he is writing it to and for what reasons.

i have. and then some.

 

[Flat Earth Kyle]

enoch didn't die.


you seem to look at punishment as an exclusive consequence, that isn't always the case...a consequence can be good.
the laws of music theory are broken all the time and we get really great songs by doing that.
how does the baby know that it is breaking any laws?

-When laws are obeyed, as a natural consequence, blessings follow.
-Music Theory, theories are proven wrong all the time.
-The baby doesn't know that it is breaking any laws,or that the laws are even there, but the laws still act upon it.

 

[waitasec]

-The baby doesn't know that it is breaking any laws,or that the laws are even there, but the laws still act upon it.

so why put a baby in that situation?

 

[Flat Earth Kyle]

so why put a baby in that situation?

If you are referring to Adam and Eve, "In the Garden of Eden, God gave Adam and Eve their agency. He commanded them not to eat of the forbidden fruit, or the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Obeying this commandment meant that they could remain in the garden, but they could not progress by experiencing opposition in mortality. They could not know joy because they could not experience sorrow and pain.
Satan tempted Adam and Eve to partake of the fruit and they chose to do so. This was part of God's plan. Because of this choice, they were cast from the garden and out of God's physical presence. This event is called the Fall. Seperation from God's presence is spiritual death. Adam and Eve became mortal- subject to physical death, or seperation of the physical body and spirit. They could now experience disease and all types of suffering. They had moral agency or the ability to choose between good and evil. This made it possible for them to learn and progress. It also made it possible for them to make wrong choices and to sin. In additon, they could now have children, so the rest of God's spirit children could come to earth, obtain physical bodies, and be tested. Only this way could God's children progress and become like him."

 

[waitasec]

If you are referring to Adam and Eve, "In the Garden of Eden, God gave Adam and Eve their agency. He commanded them not to eat of the forbidden fruit, or the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Obeying this commandment meant that they could remain in the garden, but they could not progress by experiencing opposition in mortality.

it was pointess to ask a & e to obey. they were free. meaning no boundaries. if they were aware of this boundary they were privy to the knowledge of good and evil...so were they?

They could not know joy because they could not experience sorrow and pain.
Satan tempted Adam and Eve to partake of the fruit and they chose to do so. This was part of God's plan. Because of this choice, they were cast from the garden and out of God's physical presence. This event is called the Fall. Seperation from God's presence is spiritual death. Adam and Eve became mortal- subject to physical death, or seperation of the physical body and spirit. They could now experience disease and all types of suffering. They had moral agency or the ability to choose between good and evil. This made it possible for them to learn and progress. It also made it possible for them to make wrong choices and to sin. In additon, they could now have children, so the rest of God's spirit children could come to earth, obtain physical bodies, and be tested. Only this way could God's children progress and become like him."

all this works under the premise they KNEW about good and evil before they had partaken of the forbidden fruit. understanding something is forbidden is understanding a boundary, a & e were innocent, or were they?

 

[PolyHedral]

I don't see how it is unbalanced. He doesn't change the rules as He goes along.

His rules are, functionally, arbitrary. He does not offer any justification for them other than "I say so."

Because the wicked and the righteous do not deserve the same fate - that would be unjust.

Irrelevant. God was already established as not just.

 

[Flat Earth Kyle]

it was pointess to ask a & e to obey. they were free. meaning no boundaries. if they were aware of this boundary they were privy to the knowledge of good and evil...so were they?

Sounds a lot like telling a baby about the laws of gravity doesn't it.

all this works under the premise they KNEW about good and evil before they had partaken of the forbidden fruit. understanding something is forbidden is understanding a boundary, a & e were innocent, or were they?

Again,Sounds a lot like telling a baby about the laws of gravity doesn't it.

 

[waitasec]

Sounds a lot like telling a baby about the laws of gravity doesn't it.


Again,Sounds a lot like telling a baby about the laws of gravity doesn't it.

and you would expect a baby to understand?
so why put them in that predicament?

 

[Katzpur]

and you would expect a baby to understand?
so why put them in that predicament?

I think you've misunderstood yaddoe. LDS doctrine doesn't expect a baby to understand, doesn't put him in any kind of a predicament and doesn't hold him responsibility for his decisions. It's mainstream Christianity that does that.

 

[waitasec]

I think you've misunderstood yaddoe. LDS doctrine doesn't expect a baby to understand, doesn't put him in any kind of a predicament and doesn't hold him responsibility for his decisions. It's mainstream Christianity that does that.

really?
because he said:

If you are referring to Adam and Eve, "In the Garden of Eden, God gave Adam and Eve their agency. He commanded them not to eat of the forbidden fruit, or the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Obeying this commandment meant that they could remain in the garden, but they could not progress by experiencing opposition in mortality.

we are not really talking about a child per se...but putting a & e in the position of innocent children.

 

[Azekual]

I think you've misunderstood yaddoe. LDS doctrine doesn't expect a baby to understand, doesn't put him in any kind of a predicament and doesn't hold him responsibility for his decisions. It's mainstream Christianity that does that.

I disagree. In several mainstream churches I have heard the preacher talk about the "age of accountability". This is the age at which a child is capable of understanding right from wrong and is the age at which God starts holding them accountable for sin. It varies between children but the average age is seven if I remember.
I am unaware of Catholicism's current stand on this, but I know that purgatory has/had a special place for unbaptized children

 

[waitasec]

what the heck...?

this isn't even close to what yaddoe and i were talking about....
not by a long shot....

perhaps if you go back a page or so you'd see why we are discussing innocence and children and applying it to adam state on innocence.

 

[Katzpur]

we are not really talking about a child per se...but putting a & e in the position of innocent children.

Maybe I haven't been following this thread closely enough to be able to comment. If so, just write my remarks off as irrelevant. We don't believe that Adam and Eve "sinned" per se by eating the fruit, since they were "as children, not knowing good and evil." They "disobeyed" God without fully recognizing it as "evil." That's what children do all the time, before they're old enough to understand.

 

[Katzpur]

I disagree. In several mainstream churches I have heard the preacher talk about the "age of accountability". This is the age at which a child is capable of understanding right from wrong and is the age at which God starts holding them accountable for sin. It varies between children but the average age is seven if I remember.

That's correct. A number of Protestant churches do teach that there is an age at which children can be held accountable for their sins. on the other hand, they will tell you that we are all "born in sin." How those two supposed facts fail to contradict each other, I've never been able to figure out.

I am unaware of Catholicism's current stand on this, but I know that purgatory has/had a special place for unbaptized children

But why would this even be necessary? Why should children be held accountable before they are capable of understanding right and wrong?

 

[Flat Earth Kyle]

and you would expect a baby to understand?
so why put them in that predicament?

I already told you, Adam and Eve played a crucial role in our Heavenly Father's plan.
If it were not for them partaking of the fruit none of us would ever even be here today, Adam and Eve would still be in the garden and our Heavenly Father's plan for all of his children to come to earth, get bodies, grow, and be tested would of been utterly thwarted.

 

[waitasec]

I already told you, Adam and Eve played a crucial role in our Heavenly Father's plan.
If it were not for them partaking of the fruit none of us would ever even be here today, Adam and Eve would still be in the garden and our Heavenly Father's plan for all of his children to come to earth, get bodies, grow, and be tested would of been utterly thwarted.

oh i see, i guess this interpretation is more like the original jewish interpretation than that of the mainstream christian interpretation...

nevertheless, the god of the bible set man up.

 

[Flat Earth Kyle]

correct me if I'm wrong Katzpur, pretty much, yah, according to my understanding they were set up.

 

[Flat Earth Kyle]

God never forced anyone to do anything. His plan never would of worked if Satan was not there to tempt Adam and Eve, or if Adam and Eve never partook of the fruit.

I do understand though how it is kind of confusing how God commanded them not to partake of the fruit, but I suspect this was probably so because God will never tell us to sin, and if He were to tell us to sin, then it wouldn't be a sin, so it was the only way.