Contradiction of greatest

[Ryft]

What qualifies as wicked? People who do evil things? People who do not believe in God? People who do both?

Both. 'Evil', 'wicked', 'sin', and 'bad' are all synonymous; they are privative moral terms, and morality is determined by God—grounded in his nature and expressed prescriptively by his commands. So wickedness is people doing evil things, and not believing in God is just one of the many evil things they do (e.g., 1 John 3:23, "And this is his commandment: We must believe in the name of his Son, Jesus Christ ...").

[Eilonnwy]

Both. 'Evil', 'wicked', 'sin', and 'bad' are all synonymous; they are privative moral terms, and morality is determined by God—grounded in his nature and expressed prescriptively by his commands. So wickedness is people doing evil things, and not believing in God is just one of the many evil things they do (e.g., 1 John 3:23, "And this is his commandment: We must believe in the name of his Son, Jesus Christ ...").

So, to be clear, you believe that someone who is a relatively good person, may live his life by so called "Christian values" but does not believe is going to hell?

[Violet]

Yup. Oh, and if your parents didn't believe, and you did: still going. Back to how many of a generation again???

[theblindferrengi]

Wow, how mateur of you christians, labeling everyone who doesent agree with your beliefs evil, as opposed to discussing about why and what the disagreements are, and finally accepting others beliefs as the beliefs of others.

Although you, and fr0d0, and a few others here don't label that but do discuss, thats why I agree with (but dont concur, or believe in) your version of christianity for the most part.

[Ryft]

So, to be clear: you believe that someone who is a relatively good person, may live his life by so-called "Christian values" but does not believe, is going to hell?

A relatively good person? By what moral criteria? That was a card shrewdly dealt from the bottom of the deck. Hopefully your fingers merely slipped and that wasn't on purpose. As for my response to the question: Every single relatively good person goes to heaven, but that's because "relatively good" is relative to a right relationship with God through Christ Jesus, apart from whom there is no good. The sinfulness of man, as Malcolm Muggeridge pointed out, "is at once the most empirically verifiable reality but at the same time the most intellectually resisted fact." You disagree, of course, because you opt for a vastly different moral theory. However, you were not asking me about your views.

[Ace Otana]

Every single relatively good person goes to heaven, but that's because "relatively good" is relative to a right relationship with God through Christ Jesus

Good and evil are man-made concepts. Nothing more. Theists tend to think we got this "morality" from some supernatural being. I disagree. Thinking of others and maintaining a caring and thoughtful attitude is largely due to our social nature. We are naturally social animals. Elephants would never abandon one of their own. This isn't because of god but because of their social nature. In nature, there is no such thing as good or evil. Only behaving in a caring social attitude. We call this moral but in fact this is beneficial for everyone who plays by those social standards. By standing and helping each other we are in fact bettering ourselves as social animals. If everyone was selfish and only thought of themselves society as we know it would break down. So it's beneficial to help others. Good and evil just like god are all concepts.

apart from whom there is no good.

Wrong. Good and evil are only man made concepts. Doing good as in a caring social attitude is natural to us by nature. God had nothing to do with it.

The sinfulness of man

Sin is just a concept.

You disagree, of course, because you opt for a vastly different moral theory.

Of course. One that actually makes sense.

[Eilonnwy]

A relatively good person? By what moral criteria? That was a card shrewdly dealt from the bottom of the deck. Hopefully your fingers merely slipped and that wasn't on purpose. As for my response to the question: Every single relatively good person goes to heaven, but that's because "relatively good" is relative to a right relationship with God through Christ Jesus, apart from whom there is no good. The sinfulness of man, as Malcolm Muggeridge pointed out, "is at once the most empirically verifiable reality but at the same time the most intellectually resisted fact." You disagree, of course, because you opt for a vastly different moral theory. However, you were not asking me about your views.

By the moral criteria you assert with the exception of belief. (I.E. They do not steal, rape, murder, get married, have children, live a good life, give to charity, etc... but don't believe in God) However, it seems clear you don't think someone can be moral by "Christian standards" without belief. So that brings me to my next question, do these "wicked" people go to hell and what is hell from your Christian perspective?

[Retorth]

We should link this to my "Hell" thread. I asked that question there as a matter of fact.

[Ryft]

By the moral criteria you assert, with the exception of belief.

Yet the person is NOT "relatively good" by Christian moral criteria. Just because the life of Joe Atheist seemed to correspond to a brief selection of God's commands, the relationship between his conduct and God's commands was coincidental, not intentional (viz. his convictions and motivations had nothing to do with God). Under the Christian worldview, morality is grounded in the nature of God and expressed prescriptively in his commands; that means no act is moral or immoral in and of itself, but rather in how it relates to the nature and will of God. So getting married, having children, giving to charity, etc., such things are not in themselves good, but rather only when they are informed and influenced by the nature and will of God. Predicating morality on humanity is consistent with a Humanist model but not with a Christian model, which posits God, not man, as the final reference point of all predication.

But even IF some things in his life corresponds to Christian moral precepts, he cannot be considered relatively good if MOST things he does violates them; i.e., if his life is consistent with 12 commands yet violates 240 other commands, then by definition he is relatively bad (95%), not relatively good, a position that is not helped by passages such as James 4:17.

So that brings me to my next question: Do these "wicked" people go to hell?

Would someone who is tried and convicted on several hundred criminal charges go to jail?

And what is hell from your Christian perspective?

Gehenna, "the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone" in which the damned, all the works of man, Satan and death itself are destroyed forever, "which is the second death." I belong to the 'conditional immortality' school of biblical thought, arguing that since the Bible says (i) God alone is immortal and (ii) immortality is a gift that is given only to the saved at the Second Coming, then it is must follow that the damned are completely annihilated. Eternal torment requires immortality, which only the saved are given. (I also deny the existence of the soul, as commonly conceived from Platonic thought.)

[amw79]

By the moral criteria you assert, with the exception of belief.

Yet the person is NOT "relatively good" by Christian moral criteria. Just because the life of Joe Atheist seemed to correspond to a brief selection of God's commands, the relationship between his conduct and God's commands was coincidental, not intentional (viz. his convictions and motivations had nothing to do with God). Under the Christian worldview, morality is grounded in the nature of God and expressed prescriptively in his commands; that means no act is moral or immoral in and of itself, but rather in how it relates to the nature and will of God. So getting married, having children, giving to charity, etc., such things are not in themselves good, but rather only when they are informed and influenced by the nature and will of God. Predicating morality on humanity is consistent with a Humanist model but not with a Christian model, which posits God, not man, as the final reference point of all predication.

But even IF some things in his life corresponds to Christian moral precepts, he cannot be considered relatively good if MOST things he does violates them; i.e., if his life is consistent with 12 commands yet violates 240 other commands, then by definition he is relatively bad (95%), not relatively good, a position that is not helped by passages such as James 4:17.

This is an absolutely disgraceful doctrine, and legacy of the assumed superiority of the Christian worldview. The view that you and I could both take exactly the same compassionate action (e.g. giving money or time to a charitable cause); however somehow your action is intrinsically more moral than mine, as you do it via a relationship with god, and I do it out of pure compassion for my fellow man. I find this abhorrent, and a legacy of Christianity trying to assert itself as the dominant religious worldview.

I know you're a very skilled debater, and you'll undoubedly have some christian rationale to back up your belief. However if you can't see that this dogma is obviously invented with the sole aim of making Christianity "the only game in town", then you've clearly closed your mind to seeing any possible flaws or doubt in your own worldview.