How can a Good God send people to hell?

Originally posted by dj2becker
In order for your words to have any meaning to me, you have to demonstrate to me why the Quar'an is true and the Bible is false.

I could easily demonstrate why I believe the Bible and not the Quar'an.

I heard you the first time. As you may not realize, I reject all the Abrahamic religions as rehashed mythology. I'm sure there's an Islamic scholar who would stand on his own in such a debate, but I'm not interested. Although I don't reject Mohammed's historical personnage as I do, say, Jesus'...I do reject the idea that any of these earth-bound religions are conduits to any sort of higher power...if indeed there is one.

I'm simply pointing out that since you seem to enjoy Paschal's Wager, you might want to hedge your bets like that guy in The Mummy when he meets Imhotep for the first time...

Originally posted by Pawnokeyhole
Bit pointless to open the Book of Works then. Do you think God does so for His own perverse amusement?

By 'perverse,' I assume you are referencing your perfect standard of fair. That notwithstanding, the BoW is opened precisely because of God's sense of fairness. All accounts must be reconciled. You either stand before God imputed with His righteousness, or you stand on your own. If you stand on your own, how would it be fair of God to say you do not match His righteousness without viewing your acts?

Originally posted by dj2becker
I believe that all people that reject Christ will not be partaking of Heaven with Him by their own free will.

So, your supposed all-knowing god is a fraud.
Your god is not all-knowing and as such exists solely within the human concept of time.
If your god were truly all-knowing why would your god create people who your god will burn in hell?
Perhaps if you make your god to be not all-knowing and not directly involved in creation it would be more believable.
Your god is a human creation.

Originally posted by Nordlys
From Wikipedia: "Repentance is the feeling and act in which one recognizes and tries to right a wrong, or gain forgiveness from someone that they wronged. In religious contexts it usually refers to repenting for a sin against God. It always includes an admission of guilt, and also includes at least one of: a solemn promise or resolve not to repeat the offens ...[text shortened]... ense, and without an attempt to make restitution for the wrong or reverse the harmful effects.

The problem with sin is that it is so part of human nature, that repentance is required to overcome it. Sure you can try to stop, but you won't get very far. It is only after we repent that that we can have victory over the power of sin.

I recomend this article: http://www.rapidnet.com/~jbeard/bdm/Introduction/repent.htm

Originally posted by Pawnokeyhole
If I assume a natural law, like gravitation, am I assuming a natural lawgiver? No.

Similarly, if I assume a moral law, do I not assume a moral lawgiver? No.

So your argument is invalid.

In any case, I am only using the phrase "natural law" loosely. I mean something like "widely shared and uncontroversial moral intuition".

I take it that you have a Naturalistic, Atheistic framework.

You thus have no reason for any moral absolutes within this paradigm.

Thus your evalution of God's love and mercy is invalid as you are using a absolute point of reference.

Originally posted by David C
I heard you the first time. As you may not realize, I reject all the Abrahamic religions as rehashed mythology. I'm sure there's an Islamic scholar who would stand on his own in such a debate, but I'm not interested. Although I don't reject Mohammed's historical personnage as I do, say, Jesus'...I do reject the idea that any of these earth-bound religions ar ...[text shortened]... o hedge your bets like that guy in The Mummy when he meets Imhotep for the first time...

Is there any specific reason why you don't reject Mohammed's historical personnage yet reject the historical personnage of Jesus?

With regards to Paschal's Wager, I have reason to believe in the exclusivity of the Christian faith. But for a starting point, philosophically I find it more compelling to believe in an intelligent first cause.

Originally posted by caissad4
So, your supposed all-knowing god is a fraud.
Your god is not all-knowing and as such exists solely within the human concept of time.
If your god were truly all-knowing why would your god create people who your god will burn in hell?
Perhaps if you make your god to be not all-knowing and not directly involved in creation it would be more believable.
Your god is a human creation.

As a starting point for this discussion, I presume you are an Atheist?

As you are assuming a moral law in your question, would you first care to demonstrate from whence you go it within your naturalistic, atheistic framework?

I will gladly move on to the rest of your question later on.

Originally posted by dj2becker
I believe the answer lies in God's love and his justice.

God is just and must punnish sin. But He is also loving and must forgive sin. God is both absolutely just and unconditionally loving. Each attribute complements the other. God is "justly holy" and "holy just." That is, his justice is administered in love, and his love is distributed justly.

The ...[text shortened]... erson that goes to hell is one who rejects God's love and meets up with his justice.

dj2, I am a believer of God's existence; but not in religion (any of them!). I find your last sentence very interesting. Let me ask you this: Imagine that a person is very, very kind-hearted and loving. He goes out of his way to help others. He makes sacrifices for the good of others. BUT! he doesn't believe in God. Would you say God is just and loving if he sends this person to hell when he dies?

Originally posted by ckoh1965
dj2, I am a believer of God's existence; but not in religion (any of them!). I find your last sentence very interesting. Let me ask you this: Imagine that a person is very, very kind-hearted and loving. He goes out of his way to help others. He makes sacrifices for the good of others. BUT! he doesn't believe in God. Would you say God is just and loving if he sends this person to hell when he dies?

dj2, I am a believer of God's existence; but not in religion (any of them!)

I find your belief very interesting. As you believe that God exists, don't you think that God would reveal himself to mankind in some or other way?

Let me ask you this: Imagine that a person is very, very kind-hearted and loving. He goes out of his way to help others. He makes sacrifices for the good of others. BUT! he doesn't believe in God.

What would motivate them to do this if they did not believe in God?

Would you say God is just and loving if he sends this person to hell when he dies?

Your question assumes that the person does not believe in God. I believe that God reveals himself to every human being in some way or another.

I believe that the honest seeker will always find out that he is being sought by God. Therefore to answer your question, God does not send anyone to hell, they choose to go there by rejecting Him.

Originally posted by dj2becker
[b]dj2, I am a believer of God's existence; but not in religion (any of them!)

I find your belief very interesting. As you believe that God exists, don't you think that God would reveal himself to mankind in some or other way?

Let me ask you this: Imagine that a person is very, very kind-hearted and loving. He goes out of his way to help othe ...[text shortened]... er your question, God does not send anyone to hell, they choose to go there by rejecting Him.

I think that is exactly what this guy is saying that God may have revealed himself to him in some way. A way that does not fit in with your thinking.

How about infants? Surely they cannot grasp or accept God as you are wanting. The best they can do is smile at the breast and look delighted at faces of love. What happens when one of these dies?

Originally posted by dj2becker
[b]dj2, I am a believer of God's existence; but not in religion (any of them!)

I find your belief very interesting. As you believe that God exists, don't you think that God would reveal himself to mankind in some or other way?

Let me ask you this: Imagine that a person is very, very kind-hearted and loving. He goes out of his way to help othe ...[text shortened]... er your question, God does not send anyone to hell, they choose to go there by rejecting Him.

The truth is that I don't know. I'm 41 yrs old, and so far God hasn't revealed himself to me. Maybe he's still working on it.

Are you suggesting that a person will do good deeds ONLY if he believes in God? Does one need something to motivate himself to do good deeds? Isn't it possible that a person is being a good person because he can figure out for himself that one thing is right, whereas the other is not?

I consider myself to be a normal healthy person with an average IQ (never tested before). My logical thinking and analysis somehow can't convince me to believe in any religion. I am not rejecting God. I just fail to find him, at least not through any of the religions. And although this may be surprising to you, let me tell you that if there is indeed a hell somehow, I choose not to go there when I die! I don't care what other people wrote in the bible ages ago. This only leads me to believe that they didn't know what they were saying! I declare now, choose to go to heaven if there is one! So now let me ask you this: in the end it's God who's rejecting us, right? He's the one who's locking the door to heaven on us, right?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
By 'perverse,' I assume you are referencing your perfect standard of fair. That notwithstanding, the BoW is opened precisely because of God's sense of fairness. All accounts must be reconciled. You either stand before God imputed with His righteousness, or you stand on your own. If you stand on your own, how would it be fair of God to say you do not match His righteousness without viewing your acts?

By perverse, I mean a waste of time.

Originally posted by dj2becker
I take it that you have a Naturalistic, Atheistic framework.

You thus have no reason for any moral absolutes within this paradigm.

Thus your evalution of God's love and mercy is invalid as you are using a absolute point of reference.

You can have moral absolutes without someone to specify them, just like you can have absolute physical laws without someone specify them.

This was the point of my last post. Hence, your current objection doesn't work either.

Your last line also makes no sense. What you meant to say, perhaps, (but still fallaciously) was that "evalution of God's love and mercy is invalid as you are [NOT] using a absolute point of reference."

What makes the commandments uttered by a deity good or bad? Are they simply good or bad in virtue of the fact that He commands them?

Originally posted by kirksey957
I think that is exactly what this guy is saying that God may have revealed himself to him in some way. A way that does not fit in with your thinking.

How about infants? Surely they cannot grasp or accept God as you are wanting. The best they can do is smile at the breast and look delighted at faces of love. What happens when one of these dies?

I think that is exactly what this guy is saying that God may have revealed himself to him in some way. A way that does not fit in with your thinking.

Maybe if he examines the evidence, he will find out that the one and only true God is the one with whom man can have fellowship.

How about infants? Surely they cannot grasp or accept God as you are wanting. The best they can do is smile at the breast and look delighted at faces of love. What happens when one of these dies?

God is just. I personally don't think that he would judge someone who is not responisble for his/her actions.

Originally posted by dj2becker
[b]I think that is exactly what this guy is saying that God may have revealed himself to him in some way. A way that does not fit in with your thinking.

Maybe if he examines the evidence, he will find out that the one and only true God is the one with whom man can have fellowship.

How about infants? Surely they cannot grasp or accept God as ...[text shortened]... personally don't think that he would judge someone who is not responisble for his/her actions.

He may be able to find fellowship in nature. This may be a very meaningful thing to him. Who am I to negate this? He may find fellowship in an AA meeting and his "Higher Power" may be different from what you or I may have. Again, if iti is working, who am I to negate this?