Even a moral person will go to Hell.

[kmkemp]

Well whether or not you believe that they would have a moral responsibility, you do understand that many of them do believe they have a moral responsibility. I could introduce you to dozens of individuals who do strongly believe that the world would be much better off through atheism. And they also feel a strong sense of moral responsibility. Disagree if you wish, but understand that these individuals are trying to do what they believe is right from their own sense of morality, and sometimes even at great cost to themselves.

And you are wrong when you say that no one would fault them for withholding their views. How would you feel if you knew of a theist who deeply believed that they must spread the good news but nonetheless kept silent for some reason? Many atheists would fault an atheist for keeping quiet. (not saying that I would)

The repercussion for an atheist not spreading his belief in the worst case scenario is no change.
The repercussion for a theist not spreading his belief in the worst case scenario is someone being tortured eternally.

I don't see the correlation.

 

[kmkemp]

Do you believe that this may be the point that Romans 1 is trying to get at?

I believe that it is one of the ways that His invisible attributes is revealed, yes.

 

[Booko]

I get this a lot. Really, who do you like more?

1) The Christian that knows you are doomed to hell and keeps their mouth shut or
2) The Christian that knows you are doomed to hell and tries to help you.

Even if you don't believe in God, don't you think the second person cares more about you? No one likes conflict, but thank God there are Christians that consider your soul more important than possible harsh words.

I"ll take door #1, since you asked.

And I've met plenty of so-called Christians that mistreated me in the name of "trying to help me."

I pray you do not turn out to be one of them.

 

[Booko]

The repercussion for a theist not spreading his belief in the worst case scenario is someone being tortured eternally.

Just a point of clarification, kmkemp: There are many many theists out there who do not believe in eternal torture, so there would be no such repercussion.

For those who do believe in eternal torture, your point would hold, but that's really quite a minority of theists, limited to at most a couple of religions I think, and not all the adherents of those, even.

 

[kmkemp]

What would your reaction be if an atheist asked you if you would gladly go spend Eternity with Morgoth rather than spend eternity with the Valar?

Just because I don't believe in something doesn't mean that I should give a nonsensical answer to a hypothetical question.

 

[kmkemp]

Just a point of clarification, kmkemp: There are many many theists out there who do not believe in eternal torture, so there would be no such repercussion.

For those who do believe in eternal torture, your point would hold, but that's really quite a minority of theists, limited to at most a couple of religions I think, and not all the adherents of those, even.

"worst case"

 

[doppelganger]

Just because I don't believe in something doesn't mean that I should give a nonsensical answer to a hypothetical question.

How is that nonsensical?

 

[kmkemp]

You mean choosing eternal torture over eternal happiness? The better question is what part of that isn't nonsensical.

 

[fantome profane]

The repercussion for an atheist not spreading his belief in the worst case scenario is no change.
The repercussion for a theist not spreading his belief in the worst case scenario is someone being tortured eternally.

I don't see the correlation.

That is how you see the repercussions. I am only trying to get you to understand that an atheist might see the repercussions quite differently than you do.

 

[doppelganger]

You mean choosing eternal torture over eternal happiness? The better question is what part of that isn't nonsensical.

Ummmm . . . none of it. It's no more or less nonsensical than Morgoth and the Valar.

 

[Booko]

Just because I don't believe in something doesn't mean that I should give a nonsensical answer to a hypothetical question.

No, but to many atheists your question about heaven and hell is as absurd and nonsensical (or at least irrelevant) as my question about non-existent "gods" from a work of fiction.

You may laugh at their answers if you like, but all that shows is an inability to look at things from their point of view. If you feel so compelled to reach them in order to get them to accept the Gospel, an inability to put yourself in their shoes will hamper your efforts.

At least, I didn't think Paul said what he did about "be all things to all people" as an instruction that Christians should expect everyone to see everything from a Christian view. It always struck me as rather practical advice to consider your audience when speaking to them.

 

[kmkemp]

Ummmm . . . none of it. It's no more or less nonsensical than Morgoth and the Valar.

I am not here to debate with you the merits of Morgoth/Valar versus heaven/hell. The idea that someone would choose eternal torture over eternal happiness willingly is nonsensical. No one in their right mind would do it, no matter how much they hated God or loved Satan.

 

[kmkemp]

No, but to many atheists your question about heaven and hell is as absurd and nonsensical (or at least irrelevant) as my question about non-existent "gods" from a work of fiction.

You may laugh at their answers if you like, but all that shows is an inability to look at things from their point of view. If you feel so compelled to reach them in order to get them to accept the Gospel, an inability to put yourself in their shoes will hamper your efforts.

At least, I didn't think Paul said what he did about "be all things to all people" as an instruction that Christians should expect everyone to see everything from a Christian view. It always struck me as rather practical advice to consider your audience when speaking to them.

Again, I think you are making the same mistake as Doppelganger. I am not here to tell you that the idea of picking Morgoth or Valar is nonsensical. I am saying that picking hell over heaven is nonsensical.

 

[doppelganger]

Again, I think you are making the same mistake as Doppelganger. I am not here to tell you that the idea of picking Morgoth or Valar is nonsensical. I am saying that picking hell over heaven is nonsensical.

They represent the same thing and as far as I can tell. And both are fictional products of human imagination.

 

[kmkemp]

If I asked you who would win in a fight, Sauron or the Tin Man, it would still be nonsense to say the Tin Man no matter if you believe in these characters or not.

 

[doppelganger]

If I asked you who would win in a fight, Sauron or the Tin Man, it would still be nonsense to say the Tin Man no matter if you believe in these characters or not.

Who would win in a battle of wits though? That would be the Tin Man of course (he has a doctorate of Thinkology). And since he learned from the Wizard that real power is in the manipulation of symbols, he could just recast the meaning of "Sauron" to represent a cute and fuzzy bunny. :rainbow1:

 

[Panda]

I am not here to debate with you the merits of Morgoth/Valar versus heaven/hell. The idea that someone would choose eternal torture over eternal happiness willingly is nonsensical. No one in their right mind would do it, no matter how much they hated God or loved Satan.

I do not think being with God would give me eternal happiness though. Could you be happy if you were forced to live with someone you hate?

 

[kmkemp]

I do not think being with God would give me eternal happiness though. Could you be happy if you were forced to live with someone you hate?

No matter if you absolutely hate God or not, spending eternity with Him would be infinitely better than being tortured day and night in a lake of fire, no?

 

[doppelganger]

No matter if you absolutely hate God or not, spending eternity with Him would be infinitely better than being tortured day and night in a lake of fire, no?

A "God" that would send people to a lake of fire because they didn't adopt some arbitrary formula in their heads? Seriously, I'd take lake of fire, or "believe" solely for the purpose of trading my spot with someone condemned by such a beast.

 

[jonny]

I believe that it is one of the ways that His invisible attributes is revealed, yes.

You've been watching too many press conferences. This is the best non-answer to a question I've seen on RF in a while.

I think this thread has taken off in a completely different direction than where it was before, so I'll just leave it at that.