(May 20, 2011 at 2:28 pm)everythingafter Wrote: I'm sorry if my feeble mind can't wrap my mind around a god who supposedly loves man yet places him in such an impossible position. God: "I demand you love me and believe in my son or face the fire." This is spiritual blackmail.
Or ...
God: "I created man, and it was good. Now, I'm going to put you in the garden where the devil will inevitably tempt you. I will allow the devil into my wonderful garden so you can prove your obedience to me. Unfortunately, you will fail. I knew you would fail beforehand, but I chose to create you anyway. Even though I have cursed you and every other human that will come after you, I love you and Eve. But take heart, I'm sending my son to die a horrible death for you. That makes it better, right? In retrospect, I guess I could have prevented the whole ugly scenario in the first place, but I, in all my lucidity, chose to begin the slow death march of humanity. Some of you, I admit, will think on these things and probably reject me. Oh well. Sorry about that. I'm all-powerful and all-loving, but there's nothing I can do there. My omniscient hands are tied. But I do love you. You know that, right?"
What am I not understanding? What other reasons could God possibly have for knowingly placing us in this spiritual gauntlet? Pronouncements saying that God has his reasons or that God's ways are not our ways, makes "God's ways" very peculiar and cruel indeed. In any case, such pronouncements get God off the hook far too easily.
I don't say all this absolutely proves he is not real, just that it makes it highly unlikely. Or, at the least, makes this god, like all others, unworthy of worship.
First off, it is funny what a convincing strong argument Statler Waldorf has brought to clarify this.
I'll say my views on the idea that anyone who does not believe in God goes to hell.
There are verses that seem to show things differently:
Acts 17.30, John 9.41, 15.22-24, Luke 12.48.
Anyway, think about this: if you read in the gospels, you will find that Jesus is 'threatening'/'accusing' mostly the religious leaders, and all there were Jews (whom did have the Old Testament, believing it, etc.). While if you look in the book of Acts, how the apostles are approaching the pagans, you will notice that they do not come forth and say "come and believe what I tell you or you'll burn in hell for an eternity!" (e.g. look at Acts 7.19-31).
Now, we also see Mark 16.15-16 which says:
Mark 16.15-16 Wrote:15. He said to them, Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation.1. we do know that the apostles have been taught by Jesus all the time in these 3.5 years - I've heard from somewhere that it was 3.5 years, perhaps there is a correct basis for that, but I don't remember now - so the apostles were ready for the task, able to do what they supposed to do (unlike 16 years old boys that didn't even know they're bible and go to convert others).
16. Whoever believes and is baptised will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.
2. the "believing" was not about a pagan in China that they could not have reached, but the people they met and talked to - v.15; The same idea we find in John 12.47-50: Jesus starts from "As for the person who hears my words", not from "whoever in this entire world, that is not able to hear me".
ok, now I believe only one verse remains problematic, that seems to say that "anybody in this entire world, without any exception": John 3.18.
But I'll take it with the context, because there are other things that need to be pointed out:
John 3.17 Wrote:For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.It's about the "good tidings" (I suppose it is well known that "gospel" means that).
So think about the 'good news' that is now popular: Jesus came into the world, and just after saying the things in John 3, everybody, from China to Portugal, Africa, America, that died and did not hear the 'good tidings' went to hell, and this continued to happen up to the present and still continues as long as man will exist. So, was that what Jesus did (e.g. by saying that) going to be 'good tidings' or 'bad tidings'? (because as it is exposed, it seems to be rather bad tidings!)
The fact is that John 3.17 claims that it was something good, not something bad! It was not something to start blaming them of everything and condemn them of things that were beyond them, that was impossible for them to do, but instead was something good for the current situation.
John 3.18 Wrote:He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
Which does suggest an excuse in Romans 10.14-21 (e.g. it is explained what those Jews had no excuse in v.18-21, because... see the reasons, etc.).
But, more importantly, we do have an explanation for John 3.18, exactly in the following verses (i.e. v.19-21):
John 3.19-21 Wrote:19. This is the judgment, that the light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the light, for their deeds were evil.
20. For everyone who does evil hates the light, and does not come to the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed.
21. But he who practices the truth comes to the light, so that his deeds may be manifested as having been wrought in God.
ok, in verse 18 we know who is judged and here this judgment is explained.
I guess it is not very hard to understand what "light" and "darkness" means. The "light" can be associated with truth (i.e. something that makes a man "see", so symbolically, how things really are) or good, while "darkness" can be associated with confusion, going astray, etc. (i.e. the darkness makes a man "not see", so symbolically, does not see how things really are) or evil, wickedness, sin (i.e. "the powers of darkness" - that saying you must have heard before, and it clearly associates darkness with evil, so it shouldn't be something foreign to associate "darkness" with "evil"). Occasionally, Jesus is associated with the "light" (e.g. John 8.12), which associates Jesus & Jesus' teachings with the attributes of the light.
So, the judgment goes like this: the truth & good has come to man's reach, but the man loves the wicked things (i.e. loves the darkness - v.19), e.g. like adultery, theft, deceiving, doing evil to others for fun of for certain benefits, etc. so is impeded from coming to the "good" way, because that implies giving up all evil- v. 19; if he loves them too much - i.e. he is an evildoer - then he wouldn't give them up, so he wouldn't come to the "good" way - verse 20. But, if he is striving to do good (i.e. he is a good-doer), then he would come to something calling him to do good (i.e. to the light) - v.21.
The fact that the deeds are the important ones can also be seen in Romans 2.7-10.
Also, the fact that there are many people who do not believe because of their deeds, is also specified in John 5.44 (i.e. those people did not care for what Jesus was saying to them as much as for the appreciation/honor of other people, i.e. how others see them). Also in Hosea 5.4.
So, the Bible - as I see it - does not claim a need for a stupid believing, that causes one to go either to heaven or to hell (when that believing is: because he was taught by his grandma, or because he struggled to convince himself, etc.), but a need of deeds he yearns, struggles to do.