Pantophobia Posted March 25, 2014 Share Posted March 25, 2014 Jesus loves us so selflessly that, after seeing the agonies we went through believing and trying to have faith, he'd still chuck us into the hellfires, yet would welcome with open arms a Fred Phelps because he "accepted Jesus into his heart" a;; John 3:16, so yes, we have a winner! Ding ding ding! Sounds like agape and "good news" to me! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sophrosyne Posted March 25, 2014 Share Posted March 25, 2014 Yeah those evil Hindus had it coming tho! I imagine the conversation might go something like: God: yes my child who I so lovingly created in my image and knew before the beginning of the world Hindu: where am I? God: you died of hunger my child but alas eternal life awaits thou Hindu: oh life was so hard on the streets of Mumbai, I had to beg for food, sleep under corrugated iron, had leprosy, my children died of disease, my wife was murdered, and all through this I still found the human spirit of compassion and helped those around me, I even washed a widows clothes in the shitty river as she was unable to due to her disability and her children called me dad cause I loved them like my own. Thankfully that's all over. God: my son you suffered in a world that I made with my own hands, I saw to it that you were born into poverty and allowed you to have diseases to bring you to the place of humility that would lead you to accept the hope of my son who you never heard of. Hindu:WTF??? God: it said in the book of Romans no man is without excuse Hindu: but I can't read AND what book are you talking about? God: Look I got a lot of you guys to get through so just accept your fate Hindu: what fate? God: an eternity in a lake of fire, it's only fair Some of why I couldn't accept Christianity any longer. I think of how there are loving and kind people out there who have never heard of Jesus - and because of that, they're sent to hell according to gods book...No one deserves to burn in eternal fire. The bible is twisted and misleading. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam5 Posted March 25, 2014 Share Posted March 25, 2014 think of how there are loving and kind people out there who have never heard of Jesus - and because of that, they're sent to hell according to gods book...No one deserves to burn in eternal fire. The bible is twisted and misleading. I have heard Christians say that non-Christians can be saved through "invisible ignorance" i.e. if they have not heard the gospel they can still be saved. But that raises another problem, which is that preaching the gospel becomes a dilemma as if it is rejected this can send someone to hell, so they would have been better off in ignorance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam5 Posted March 25, 2014 Share Posted March 25, 2014 I posted the below in another thread. However, I have decided that this is such an important question that I would start another thread and post it here in the Lion's Den. There are many of our deconverting members who still suffer fear and pain caused by the Christian concept of hell. I do this for them, but I raise the challenge to any Christian takers who would like to discuss this topic and defend the Christian concept of heaven and hell. I think its unlikely you can get a defence as its undefendable, and one of the contradictory qualities assigned to their Deity. A just God would not punish people for unbelief, when he has given no clear evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Overcame Faith Posted March 25, 2014 Author Share Posted March 25, 2014 I posted the below in another thread. However, I have decided that this is such an important question that I would start another thread and post it here in the Lion's Den. There are many of our deconverting members who still suffer fear and pain caused by the Christian concept of hell. I do this for them, but I raise the challenge to any Christian takers who would like to discuss this topic and defend the Christian concept of heaven and hell. I think its unlikely you can get a defence as its undefendable, and one of the contradictory qualities assigned to their Deity. A just God would not punish people for unbelief, when he has given no clear evidence. There may be no Christian takers, I don't know. But it seems to me that the whole Chrisian concept of being "saved" begs the question of from what are they being saved? I think ultimately they are supposedly being saved from hell. Of course, that is combined with a promise of going to heaven. It seems to me that if hell vs. heaven is the crux of the religion, they would want to defend those beliefs. After all, absent either eternal punishment or eternal rewards, Christianity becomes nothing more than a philosophy on the same par with other philosophies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kris Posted March 25, 2014 Share Posted March 25, 2014 I think would be a hard topic for Christians to argue. The concept of heaven and hell bothered me when I was 7 years old--- so, if a kid can question this concept, it would be difficult to come up with a defense Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Overcame Faith Posted March 25, 2014 Author Share Posted March 25, 2014 Consider something. Suppose there are two countries. The first country, Country A, has various laws ranging from traffic laws to laws against violent crimes like rape, murder, etc., and all the laws in between. In this country, there is but one punishment for violating any law and that punishment is death. So, in Country A, the person who is convicted of speeding down the highway and the person who is convicted of being a mass murderer both receive the death penalty. The second country, Country B, has essentially the same laws as Country A. However, the difference between Country A and Country B is the punishments for violations of the law. If one is convicted of violating a law n Country B, the punishments are on a sliding scale in which the lawmakers, though imperfectly, try to have the severity of the punishment match the underlying importance and purpose of the law. Therefore, if one is convicted of speeding in Country B, he or she will be fined some amount of money. If one is convicted of breaking and entering, he or she may be fined and spend some time in jail, but will eventually be released. If one is convicted of a mass murder, he or she will receive either life in prison or possibly the death penalty. The question here is which of the two countries comes the closest to having a just system of crime and punishments and why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Overcame Faith Posted March 25, 2014 Author Share Posted March 25, 2014 Now, let's return to our two countries and consider another aspect of their respective systems. Country A has put money aside which it will bestow on individuals if they meet certain criteria. However, the sole criteria of bestowing this money is that the person who applies for this money must pledge absolute loyalty to Country A's policies, including the policy of crime and punishment as described in the above post. So long as the person makes this pledge of loyalty, Country A will bestow a large sum of money on that person but not on anyone else, no matter whether the person on whom money was not bestowed would have used it to feed the hungry, start up good schools, etc. Country B also has put money aside which it will bestow on individuals if they meet certain criteria. However, the criteria are different. For a person to receive some part of this money, he or she must demonstrate that the money will be used to help society. For example, it may be used to feed the hungry, to purchase housing for the poor, to start a business which will lead to employment with fair wages and the like. There is no obligation to pledge loyalty and the recipient of the money is free to criticize the government all he or she wants so long as the money is actually used for the good purpose for which it was given. The question here is which of the two countries comes the closest to having a just system of dispensing rewards and why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam5 Posted March 25, 2014 Share Posted March 25, 2014 I think would be a hard topic for Christians to argue. The concept of heaven and hell bothered me when I was 7 years old--- so, if a kid can question this concept, it would be difficult to come up with a defense For arguments sake, I think the best defense is to say that God is just and would grant eternal life for those who do good, and punish those who do wrong. However many Christians says you are not saved by works but soley on faith in Jesus. And those who are punished are who reject him. All of which sounds very unfair for a super-being who judges solely on belief and not on actions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kris Posted March 25, 2014 Share Posted March 25, 2014 I like country B!! Fair is fair! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator TheRedneckProfessor Posted March 25, 2014 Super Moderator Share Posted March 25, 2014 I suspect the people who judge the "criminals" in Country A are also the same people who write the laws. This truly is "god's country!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest afireinside Posted March 25, 2014 Share Posted March 25, 2014 Country A you're born of death row Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vigile Posted March 25, 2014 Share Posted March 25, 2014 Justice is a pretty elusive animal no matter how you spin it. I'm not sure it's achievable in all or even most cases or that it's even advisable to always try. Humans seem to have an instinctual need for retribution, but the purpose of the justice system is not that, but to make society safer. If systems of retribution don't achieve those ends then the sense of justice we seek is probably even counterproductive. It's ironic that such antiquated and simplistic views of justice are most often held by the religious as they are the ones who have developed systems that completely bypass the notion entirely if one simply believe what they want you to believe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Overcame Faith Posted March 25, 2014 Author Share Posted March 25, 2014 Thought crimes. 21 “You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘You shall not murder,[a] and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’ 22 But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister[b][c] will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to a brother or sister, ‘Raca,’[d] is answerable to the court. And anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell. Mathew 5:21-22. It's not just the act of murder that counts, but even being angry and calling someone a fool is sinful and the person who does this is just as culpable as an actual murderer. 27 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’[e] 28 But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. Matthew 5:27-28. And adultery is not just a physical, sexual act with someone who is married to another person. Rather, it is having a lustful thought about someone who is married to someone else. Now consider this. For those Christians who believe that a person will go to hell for unforgiven sins (as some Christians believe), then the murderer who asks for forgiveness from God/Jesus/Holy Spirit just before he is executed will go to heaven. Suppose there is a person who never committed any crimes, helped the poor, and did good works his or her whole life. One day while this person was driving his or her car down the road, he or she saw someone who is married walking down the sidewalk and had a lustful thought about that person. However, the person having the lustful thought never actually asked the person about whom he/she had the lustful thought to have sex and, of course, never had sex with that person. Let's assume that immediately after having this lustful thought, another car being driven by a drunk driver swerved into his or her lane and they had a head-on collision which immediately killed the person who had the lustful thought. According to Jesus, this person committed adultery (a sin). Because he or she never asked for forgiveness of that sin, then the person is hellbound. And for what? Merely having a thought. How can such a thing be? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest afireinside Posted March 25, 2014 Share Posted March 25, 2014 Gotta love Gods justice though. How about the guy who tried to stop the Ark of the Covenant from falling over and God killed him! Really? He was killed for doing the right thing? How about Ananias and Sapphira, sold all their shit but kept a bit as backup(as you do) and they're gone! And then God stands by as despots rule and priests fuck little God fearing boys While I'm at it why did God allow me to give up my hard earned money so the pastors can fly to bethel church half way round the world for weeks all expenses paid, if there's justice why don't I get a refund!? Justice? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roz Posted March 25, 2014 Share Posted March 25, 2014 Uzzah right? God zapped him for trying to steady his golden treasure chest. It was one of the WTF stories the SDAs are perfectly happy to share, but here's the twist. Ellen White (think Joseph Smith in a dress) mentioned somewhere that Uzzah was really the one to blame because he was somehow evil. I can't remember how she phrased it, but the bottom line is that he was evil and had to die. All from this story. Not even Loki would be so sinister. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Overcame Faith Posted March 25, 2014 Author Share Posted March 25, 2014 Another visit to the two hypothetical countries to discuss yet another policy difference between the two. Country A has all the normal rescue services that one would expect: fire, police, ambulance services, search and rescue, etc. However, in this country these rescue services are provided for only certain people and the criteria for being eligible for these services is unknown to everyone except for certain government officials who administer them. Everyone knows that only a select few will receive these services and the whole population hopes that if the time ever comes when they need the services, they will be one of the chosen few. One day a house catches on fire and the mother, father, and four children are trapped inside and if they are not rescued, they will all parish. Someone in the house is able to call 911 and tell the dispatcher of their plight. Immediately, a fire truck is dispatched and all the family members are standing at a window on the second floor awaiting rescue. When the firetruck arrives, the firefighters raise their ladder to that window and one of the firefighters climbs up the ladder. When he arrives, he calls out for Jane. Jane is the mother and the firefighter takes her down the ladder to safety. However, immediately after saving Jane, he removes the ladder and leaves the others in the house where they meet their firey end. Jane screams and asks why the firefighters did not save the rest of her family and she is told by the firefighter, "Only you were on my list." In Country B, there would have been no such choice made. The firefighter would have done his or her best to have saved the whole family because in that country there is no secret list for who gets saved and who does not. The doctrine of election anyone? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roz Posted March 25, 2014 Share Posted March 25, 2014 OF, if I may, what you said about country A's firefighters is a bit inaccurate. They would've saved the whole family, but then they would force Jane to execute all her rescued family members, as yaweh/jesus/allah wills it. Deut. 13:6-9 If your very own brother, or son or dauther, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, "let us go and worship other gods" (gods that neither you nor your ancestors have known, gods of the peoples around you, whether near or far, from one end of the land to the other), do not yield to them or listen to them. Show them NO pity. Do not spare them or shield them. You must certainly PUT THEM TO DEATH. Your hand must be the first in putting them to death, and then the hands of all the people. Now, repeat after me, citizens of Country A. god is good god is good god is good god is good god is good... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest afireinside Posted March 25, 2014 Share Posted March 25, 2014 Uzzah right? God zapped him for trying to steady his golden treasure chest. It was one of the WTF stories the SDAs are perfectly happy to share, but here's the twist. Ellen White (think Joseph Smith in a dress) mentioned somewhere that Uzzah was really the one to blame because he was somehow evil. I can't remember how she phrased it, but the bottom line is that he was evil and had to die. All from this story. Not even Loki would be so sinister. Who was in charge of delegating the jobs? "Steve you take the front and Conan the Barbarian you take the back" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator florduh Posted March 25, 2014 Super Moderator Share Posted March 25, 2014 Why would anyone assume Christianity should be about justice? It's about worshiping God and praising whatever he does and making excuses to those with a working brain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest afireinside Posted March 25, 2014 Share Posted March 25, 2014 Why would anyone assume Christianity should be about justice? It's about worshiping God and praising whatever he does and making excuses to those with a working brain. It's not. It's the justice card that's pulled out by believers whenever the doctrine of hell is in question. It's justice when it's convenient Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Overcame Faith Posted March 25, 2014 Author Share Posted March 25, 2014 OF, if I may, what you said about country A's firefighters is a bit inaccurate. They would've saved the whole family, but then they would force Jane to execute all her rescued family members, as yaweh/jesus/allah wills it. Deut. 13:6-9 If your very own brother, or son or dauther, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, "let us go and worship other gods" (gods that neither you nor your ancestors have known, gods of the peoples around you, whether near or far, from one end of the land to the other), do not yield to them or listen to them. Show them NO pity. Do not spare them or shield them. You must certainly PUT THEM TO DEATH. Your hand must be the first in putting them to death, and then the hands of all the people. Now, repeat after me, citizens of Country A. god is good god is good god is good god is good god is good... Yes, that's another way the story could go if we assume that the father and four children were worshipping other gods. However, in the doctrine of election which I was attempting to illustrate, burning in the firey pit of hell (the burning house) is the end for those who were not on some "divine list" and how they lived their lives makes no difference whatsoever. Those who are not of the elect, could worship the Christian God all day long every day of their lives and hell is their fate nevertheless. I do like your point and I am glad you brought it out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roz Posted March 25, 2014 Share Posted March 25, 2014 Ah, well then, at least Jane's non-elect family will be warm for the rest of their lives. It's like a florida retirement. god is good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Overcame Faith Posted March 25, 2014 Author Share Posted March 25, 2014 Ah, well then, at least Jane's non-elect family will be warm for the rest of their lives. It's like a florida retirement. god is good. LOL. According to those Christians to whom I have spoken and who sincerely believe in the doctrine of election, Jane should be extremely happy that god (the firefighter) had mercy on her because even she deserved hell (death in the burning house). I am always amazed at the lengths to which people will go to justify such doctrines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted March 25, 2014 Share Posted March 25, 2014 Hey Overcame! I agree with with your conclusion, but I arrive at it via a different route. Imho, this divine injustice stems from God's all-too-human failure to use and act upon His (supposedly) perfect foreknowledge. Why didn't He JUST create ONLY those humans He foreknew would accept Jesus and then populate heaven with these people? No need for a universe or Earth or Eden. Just a perfect God in a perfect heaven, surrounded by those He foreknew wanted to be there. No need for anyone but God to make any decisions at all. No need for any trees with any fruit. No need for a talking serpent. No possibility of sin. No need for Jesus' blood to perfect anyone. God's perfect foreknowledge allows Him to create His true believers, already 'perfected'. As for anyone else... they never existed. Non-existent people don't need to be punished in any way, for exercising their free will in the wrong way. They never exercised their free will at all - so they can't be punished for decisions they never made. These people only existed in God's imagination. . . . Since God made such a **** up and didn't act perfectly on His perfect foreknowledge, I therefore conclude that He's a just the fallible, flawed construct of equally-fallible and flawed human imagination. Thanks, BAA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts