God, come out, come out wherever you are!

[Christi]

Well, you're not out spreading the word of God while you are on here arguing with the condemned.

We are tempting you away from God, and you enjoy it.

[jess_essential]

You gotta know I'm gonna getcha every time.

So, if you say God is infinite and has an infinite number of images, that would have to include all images and not just images of man. Infinite implies that there is no limitations, which wouldn't be true if God were in the image of man. Plus, that would need to include primitive man, which The Bible states does not exist, because it denies evolution.

BTW, if you really love God, you wouldn't tell others that you think they are dumb. God created him, and loves him, and you have no right to insult one of God's creations.

^^Eeep. I like her. ^_^

---

Christians will never believe that some of the behaviors that they practice on an every day basis will get them into the same fiery pit of death as us non-believers. Because they already know all they have to do is BEG for forgiveness and all is well in their circular world again. It's quite a funny thing, to know that you can literally do ANYTHING and all you have to do is beg for forgiveness, and you are SAVED from eternal damnation. You would think that they would get the idea of not to keep fucking up, hence no begging, hence no hell. But ya know how those cooky christians operate. I wish that I could fuck up continuously and beg someone else to forgive me for what I've done...Or possibly, I could take into consideration that I am in fact an adult, and what I do is on MY shoulders, no matter what it is, and when I fuck up, I can smooth over my face, and realize what not to do next time. I prefer the human approach over the god delusion any day of the week and do not feel the need to beg for anyone to save me from myself. My victim days are long over.

[Tea Earl Grey Hot]

[By the time I got through writing 3/4ths of my response, I realized that you have very different, perhaps Calvinistic views on salvation, free will, etc. so much of following might not be relevant to you. But I could be mistaken so please read it anyway. And for Christians who don’t have calvinistic type views, much of the following still stands against you I think.]

Response to what biblical Christianity means.

Thanks for taking to the time to educate us on this biblical Christianity. This actually sounds very similar to the teachers I use to listen to, at least similar in methods but perhaps not conclusions. I’m somewhat familiar with exegesis versus eisegesis. I have some questions though about what’s considered a legitimate means in your view of understanding the scriptures:


1. Is the Bible inerrant?
2. If it is inerrant, in what sense is it inerrant?
3. Are you trying to understand what scripture meant to the original audience (first recipients)?
4. Does historical context play a role in your reading of scripture or does this contradict “sola scriptura”? (perhaps related to question 3)

Response to not sharing the gospel is wrong.

I see why now you think it’s wrong to not share the gospel, namely it is wrong because it is disobedience to God. When I was saying that not sharing the gospel is not wrong, I was thinking that because I could not conceive of any reason why God should consider it wrong. I see now that one may say that it is true that it is wrong to not witness to someone, but it is only wrong because it is breaking a command. But I want to know, why God would command such a thing? What good is preaching the Gospel if people who go to hell were going there anyway? (I think it’s likewise true that those going to heaven were going there anyway. It was inevitable for them too.) It was inevitable that they go to hell. He might as well command us that we plead to the sun every morning that it does not rise. The sun will rise anyway and our pleading to it doesn’t stop it. We might as well not plead.

Why sharing the gospel is pointless.
When I say pointless, I mean pointless in the sense of winning souls. You might still say it’s not pointless because it fulfill’s God’s command.

First, we need to keep in mind why a person is justly in hell:
They have either:

1. Rejected the gospel.

or

2. They would have rejected the gospel if given the chance.

It is not simply that they are in hell because perhaps they rejected the gospel just once twice (or would have if given the chance). Some people in heaven may have rejected the gospel once or twice in during their earthly lives but eventually turned around for whatever reasons. The people in hell however would reject the gospel no matter how many times it was presented to them. It could be presented a million times and in a million ways, and they’d reject it every time and in every way. They may even reject it even in hell if that were possible!

I also need to clarify that on point 2, those who died before hearing the gospel, aside from going to hell because they would have rejected gospel if given the chance, go to hell because they have rejected God’s basic revelation in nature.

Ok, to illustrate the total pointlessness of sharing the gospel, let’s say the Christian community singled out a single person a from birth for an experiment. We raise the person on a completed isolated island. The person goes through life there completely unaware of Christianity and is never told about the gospel or the existence of God. The person dies and goes to hell. Let’s remind ourselves of why: they’ve rejected God’s basic revelation in nature and if given the chance would have rejected the gospel an infinite number of times and in an infinite number of ways.

Now let’s travel back in time to the birth of the same person. Instead of isolating the person on an island, we get the Christian community to single all of their witnessing efforts on this single person for the entirety of their life. We have a massive campaign of thousands of Christians trying to witness to this person for decades and decades on end. Just non stop witnessing every day through all sorts of mediums. Let’s say that after those many decades of witnessing, the person dies. Now where do you think the person is going? It must be hell, because if the person in the first hypothetical example had gone to hell, changing the history of their life in the second hypothetical example would not have prevented that from happening. Otherwise, if they end up accepting the gospel in the second example, that would mean that they went to hell in the first example unjustly because in the first example it would not have been true that they would had rejected the gospel an infinite number of times since in the second example they accepted after a finite number of times. If they went to heaven in the second example, then they went to hell in the first example not by their own fault, but by the fault of their circumstances which they are not responsible for, but others.

However, given that it is true that no goes to hell unjustly, it can never be case that someone went to hell because of the something they could not control (such as circumstances, or people not witnessing to them). Everyone there is there by their own fault.

I think in the above illustration, you can also make the opposite case: the inevitability of someone going to heaven.

So, I think I’ve shown that a person’s destiny, whether it be heaven or hell, is inevitable. If this is true, why is God commanding us to witness then? It seems to me whether or not I witness to someone, that person is going on a fixed course to either heaven or hell. If I witness to a person, and they go to hell, I could have instead not witnessed and they would have gone to hell anyway. If I witness to a person, and they go to heaven, I could have instead not witnessed and they would have gone to heaven anyway. It makes no difference to the person’s salvation. So, if you accept that a person’s going to heaven or hell is inevitable it seems strange to me that God would command that we witness when it seemly cannot make a difference.

Reply to “Sharing the gospel is not pointless”

There are two definitions of the term pointless relevant to our case: (a) purposeless and (b) ineffective. Since sharing the gospel is efficacious and has a purpose, that is, it is the God-ordained instrument through which he reaches those for whom Christ died, it is therefore not pointless. Sharing the gospel does not by itself save anyone—Bob included. God in Christ alone does that through faith alone. But it is the means by which he reaches those who are being saved (Rom. 10:17) [emphasis mine]

.

Ok. I just realized after all that I’ve written in the above paragraphs that you’re seem to expressing Calvinist views, or something similar. I had begun this thread with my argument against those without Calvinist views. Much of my arguments then would only work against them. For you guys, I have to use some different arguments. I apologize if you’re not a Calvinist.

I guess then under your specific view that witnessing isn’t pointless when you define the point of witnessing in such a peculiar way (i.e. to call out “those being saved” or “those whom Christ died”).

Under your view then, the bigger problem, one which you’ve probably heard called out lots of times, is why didn’t Christ die for everyone? It appears completely unjust for God to allow those Christ did not die for to go into eternal torment. They can’t help it! That’s just the way they are.

Reply to “Sharing the gospel is either pointless or there is a contradiction.”

It may not be a legitimate contradiction under your views on Christianity. So, if you’re right in your interpretation, then no, there isn’t a contradiction. However for the Christians who hold to free grace and agonize over the people they may have “sent to hell” for not witnessing or being a bad witness, it is a contradiction in their view. Within their views, I think gospel witnessing really is pointless because of their insistence on free will. They actually think they can change the balance with their witnessing. But this contridicts their belief that everyone is in hell by their own fault.

As Benjamin Warfield once said, "It is not faith in Christ that saves but Christ that saves through faith."

Yeah, you see, I had in mind the complete opposite position, which is held by a fairly large number of Christians which I had my target set on. I have to work from very different arguments if you believe what Warfield said.

[Welsh cake]

Instead, I take another view. Hell is a complete absence from God. Now, given that most Christians believe God is all around us, absence from Him would be pretty unpleasant. Hence the idea why hell is so bad.

Fair enough, I was about to respond to this but then you later posted this:

Logically, it goes like this:
- Some people don't want to spend eternity with God.
- God will honor your choice in the end, thus letting that person to go a place without God, called "hell"
- The person has gotten what they wanted and is happy
- To non-believers, hell is therefore not a bad place

Why call it hell then?

I can't stand the mental concept of your god. I find it revolting and repugnant. I'd take the void of oblivion over your god concept any day (if that's what you mean by absence of god).

I couldn't give a flying shit if you think this pains or saddens god. It'll teach the fucker not to start up another crapsack reality ever again if that's the case, because it'll simply backfire in his face.

Now that we've established according to your theology, your belief system, we're damned for all eternity, why are you here with us lost causes?

[Christi]

Me thinks it is because they like to dwell in the valley of temptation...lol

[Matt231]

1) How do you define "help"? Is having a cushy, comfortable life a good thing? If this world is all that exists, then yes, and you're totally right. God is a selfish asshole who just likes to see us squirm. But IF there's something that comes after, then "help" would be the course of action that results in personal growth, understanding who you are, and a growing sense of compassion and mercy. In most cases, the smoother someone's life is going, the less likely they are to examine themselves and try to become better people. Just look at CEOs of corrupt companies for examples of that.

What about people who don't get a chance to grow and become better? Look at all the people who die at a very young age or before they are even born. Why does God let them suffer and die?

2) Assuming God is the one described in the Bible, that particular book lays out pretty clearly enough of God's character to figure out what His desires are.

A book. You get your evidence from a book. I could write a book on God right now, saying that he is an evil, selfish being who only wants to watch people suffer. If most of the population accepted it, would that make it true?

3) I sense frustration. Let's back this up a bit. Please state the point at which you started feeling my arguments got circular. If you like, let's back this up to a higher level philosophical axiom.

You don't have arguments. There is no actual evidence to support the existence of God. It all comes from fictional ideas and delusions.

[Black Chakram]

Funny thing is that at least 80% of people that consider themselves Christian are going to Hell according to The Bible, because they do not follow all the rules.

God is responsible for Hell as well as anyone said to be in Hell. He created all, which means he created Hell as well. Such a loving but vengeful God he is. You have freewill, but if you don't see the light of God, you will be punished by being directed to Hell.

If you consider yourself a Christian and believe in everything contained in The Bible, then you must spread the word of God in order to gain entrance into Heaven. It's not enough to just believe in God. If you don't spread God's love, you are doing a disservice to him and his word. If you do not teach it to others, then you are not a true servant of God.

Here's the funny part, the Christians here in this forum are actually not serving their God. Here's why: The people in this forum know the word of God and are familiar with The Bible. Those of us that chose not to believe have already been condemned unless we convert and ask God for forgiveness. To convert the condemned is actually not in favor in The Bible. As Bible believing Christians, you are supposed to be educating and spreading the word of God to those that are ignorant and can be saved. Atheists cannot be saved as they have already been condemned according to The Bible. Therefore, trying to suede the condemned is not your work. Only when we wish to be saved and come to you for guidance can you hear us and welcome us in. Until then, we are the condemned.

If you truly believe in The Bible, then you would be out in the world spreading God's love to those that have not learned of him yet. You would not be here, arguing with those of us that are already condemned in the eyes of God.

I don't know what form of Christianity you're referring to here, but it's highly divergent from what I believe. Let's analyze this point by point:

Funny thing is that at least 80% of people that consider themselves Christian are going to Hell according to The Bible, because they do not follow all the rules.

I agree with this point completely. Most "Christians" are deluding themselves.

God is responsible for Hell as well as anyone said to be in Hell. He created all, which means he created Hell as well. Such a loving but vengeful God he is. You have freewill, but if you don't see the light of God, you will be punished by being directed to Hell.

God didn't create Hell. Hell is the absence of God. What you're saying would be like if you shined a flashlight and said "Look! I created darkness!".

To convert the condemned is actually not in favor in The Bible. As Bible believing Christians, you are supposed to be educating and spreading the word of God to those that are ignorant and can be saved. Atheists cannot be saved as they have already been condemned according to The Bible.

Being "condemned" as you put it can always be changed. A lot of atheists are supposed to be all about reason, logic, and having an open mind. So where's the open mind?

[Welsh cake]

Being "condemned" as you put it can always be changed.

I wouldn't hold your breath.

Nothing short of severe brain damage will ever allow me to return the dogmatic puke that is religion. I'd pretty much opt to end my own wretched existence should that ever happen or hope that someone else will do me the kindness in spite of a fucking law system that neglects our right to die.

[Black Chakram]

Why call it hell then?

I can't stand the mental concept of your god. I find it revolting and repugnant. I'd take the void of oblivion over your god concept any day (if that's what you mean by absence of god).

I couldn't give a flying shit if you think this pains or saddens god. It'll teach the fucker not to start up another crapsack reality ever again if that's the case, because it'll simply backfire in his face.

Now that we've established according to your theology, your belief system, we're damned for all eternity, why are you here with us lost causes?

I'm not God, so I can't speak for what things may or may not be like after death. Maybe to non-Christians, hell will be exactly what they want. Not having to deal with God. It's public society that's created this image that hell is a terrible place for non-believers, not the Bible.

If you think you'd enjoy hell then cool. Spending an eternity in heaven with some God you hate would suck anyways, so all the better for the alternative, right? God's just giving you what you want. Really.

And why am I here on this forum? Because I believe any Christian that just blindly follows their beliefs without testing them is a fool. I'm not here to convert anyone. (If someone WERE to change their mind, it certainly wouldn't be through any argument I put forth.) I'm here to see if anyone can come up with an argument against Christianity that challenges me to look at my beliefs.

So far, I haven't heard anything particularly challenging.

[Welsh cake]

I'm not God, so I can't speak for what things may or may not be like after death. Maybe to non-Christians, hell will be exactly what they want. Not having to deal with God.

How is that 'godless existence' any different from what I'm experiencing right now?

Besides I don't believe in an after-death-life.

It's public society that's created this image that hell is a terrible place for non-believers, not the Bible.

Actually the Biblical hell or 'lake of fire' is described rather graphically and at great detail.

If you think you'd enjoy hell then cool. Spending an eternity in heaven with some God you hate would suck anyways, so all the better for the alternative, right? God's just giving you what you want. Really.

Dude, worshipping ANYONE for an eternity would suck. Unless you're the god being worshipped of course. Personally I hate the whole notion of reverence. Its silly, degrading and primitive. >.>

I'm here to see if anyone can come up with an argument against Christianity that challenges me to look at my beliefs.

So far, I haven't heard anything particularly challenging.

Likewise, I'm not here to deconvert you. I couldn't care less what you think.

Believe in unicorns if it floats your boat or worship the giant platypus in the sun if it makes you happy.