It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Question to Christians, Why do non-believers go to hell?

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 01:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Granton
 





But that's their struggle --- I have enough of my own.


Me too.



Some people want to show up to church and say "okay - give me the straight goods because I don't have time to figure it out --- just tell me what to do."


I'd say that was the vast majority.

There are plenty of 1st page threads on "hell" already. I don't know why people are adding more, unless there is some aspect that isn't covered in the other threads.

Christianities critics point out, and rightfully so IMO, the insanity (for lack of a better word) of this "hell" teaching because they really do see the insanity of it. But for some reason, most christians are entirely comfortable in believing this. I don't understand why that is, since it isn't supported in the scriptures. Sure, it's in the Bible, but when one looks with an open mind what words are translated into "hell" as well as "eternal" etc. you see what the theologians have been able to get away with for centuries.

Theologians know this stuff. They have to. They continue lying to people and that pisses me off. I'd love to know why they do this.

In the past, they could keep this info hidden. They can't anymore. But for some reason most are totally blind to this, even when it's pointed out to them.

This teaching on "hell" has done more damage, IMO, than the vile sick twisted thieving money grubbing liars on the boob tube could ever hope to do.


[edit on 4-11-2009 by psusa2]




posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 02:52 PM
link   
reply to post by psusa2
 


So do you believe in hell, or believe it is eternal?



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 03:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Maddogkull
 


I don't have a knowledge of hell - there is nothing about it for me to believe in - I don't think it really factors into the equation.

Well, I think we all see people who have been wounded by religion. As sad and shameful as it is, I am not just speaking of innocent wars victims. I thinking more of people here in North America. I am thinking of people who have tried to place their faith in an institution only to see hypocrisy, people who have been lied to by religious leaders, people who have been told that they are evil or wicked or sinful or that they are going to go to this hell place because of this or that... such just isn't the way of Christ.

Jesus was always wanting to be with the people cast aside,the misfits who didn't fit it, the people who didn't have someone to lean on, celebrate or cry with...

The whole business that He died for our sins... I guess that needs to be addressed because of how much people seem to also dwell on original sin.

Well, for whatever reason, man has had difficulty in living up to his potential. I think we can all agree with that. And I am sure that has been a source of struggle for many deep thinkers for as long as people have been thinking pretty thoughts. Please allow me to suggest, that Jesus's solution, offerings of wisdom, were so in conflict and radical to traditional thought - that even if accepted - it is our natural inclination to place blame and say that someone has got to pay. And since most of us don't like the idea of taking responsibilities for our own actions, the idea of Jesus being put in as a substitute for our transgressions became an easy natural sell.

I think that the original idea of animal sacrifices was to offer up to the heavens an animal and that in that process the animal became better than it was - and that somehow that spirit returned to the person making the sacrifice. I'm sure I am poorly paraphrasing here - but it wasn't so much a notion of giving something up to God as payments, but offering God something so that His spirit would return to the offer-er and bless his life. It's a subtle difference and one that could easily be manipulated - and seems to have been.

So Jesus didn't die for our sins - he may have been killed because of what he represented - and what he represented was a radical form of spiritual fulfillment in which our sins are conquered --- but that isn't the same as dying for our sins. Does that make sense?

I am brand new to ATS and chats and forums so I hope I am not breaking any thread protocols.


Going gently,

G.



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 03:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maddogkull
reply to post by psusa2
 


So do you believe in hell, or believe it is eternal?


No, it's not what I believe that's important. What scripture says is what is important, if one is a Christian.

Try and find one definition outside of some Bible translations on that word "hell".

The only one I can find is the word "Hel", which describes the realm and the name of the god of the norse underworld. Here (the god) and here (location). It's very similar to the "christian" hell. Too much of a coincidence in my opinion...

The only other possible legit definition of "hell" is old english for "hidden, concealed, cellar". I cannot verify that. It just comes from a personal source I trust and it would makes its inclusion in the 1611 KJV legit, even if the definition has gone through a rather extreme change in the past few hundred years.



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 08:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Granton

I think we can agree that we have no first hand accurate accounts of what Jesus said.


In our possession? No


Originally posted by Granton
We do have to view the gospels with a certain degree of skepticism.


Who’s skepticism though? Is there a universal “skepticism” for which we are to view all things? Perhaps it’s best said that you have certain presuppositions, just as does Funk and Crossan and others of the Jesus Seminar, which you come to Scripture with. Those being, most likely, that anything outside of a naturalistic explanation must be brought into question. Therefore the virgin birth is nonsense, Jesus never walked on water, never raised from the dead and the Lord’s Prayer has been reduced to “Our Father”.

How can one be objective and seek the truth about Jesus if they have presuppositions set within a philosophy of naturalism?

How skeptical are you of being skeptical?


Originally posted by Granton
It could be argued that Matthew for example, was written/told/documented for a Roman audience - and when you understand that - you can discern a certain slant to the way the stories are told.


I believe you’re in error here. Matthew is directed more towards a Jewish audience. Matthew begins with a list from genealogy which was important to get across to Jews, not Romans, for their Messiah was to come from the lineage of David.

Perhaps you’re thinking of Mark.



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 08:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by TangoVooDoo

Originally posted by Granton




I believe you’re in error here. Matthew is directed more towards a Jewish audience. Matthew begins with a list from genealogy which was important to get across to Jews, not Romans, for their Messiah was to come from the lineage of David.

Perhaps you’re thinking of Mark.


Yes - I wasn't complete in my remark there. It was of a Jewish tradition - trying to survive in a Roman world I would add.



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 08:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Granton
We do have to view the gospels with a certain degree of skepticism.


Who’s skepticism though? Is there a universal “skepticism” for which we are to view all things? Perhaps it’s best said that you have certain presuppositions, just as does Funk and Crossan and others of the Jesus Seminar, which you come to Scripture with. Those being, most likely, that anything outside of a naturalistic explanation must be brought into question. Therefore the virgin birth is nonsense, Jesus never walked on water, never raised from the dead and the Lord’s Prayer has been reduced to “Our Father”.

How can one be objective and seek the truth about Jesus if they have presuppositions set within a philosophy of naturalism?

How skeptical are you of being skeptical?


I'm trying to follow what you are asking me --- the point I am trying to make is that for those folks who can't get beyond things like a Virgin birth or walking on water - that those things actually impede them from developing any understanding of Jesus --- that there is a way to appreciate those things for what might be described as literary tools - and still come away with a deep affection for Jesus as someone real and vital.



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 09:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Granton




I'm trying to follow what you are asking me --- the point I am trying to make is that for those folks who can't get beyond things like a Virgin birth or walking on water - that those things actually impede them from developing any understanding of Jesus --- that there is a way to appreciate those things for what might be described as literary tools - and still come away with a deep affection for Jesus as someone real and vital.


First, thank you for your replies and taking time to reply.

Secondly, I am not your typical run-o-the-mill Bible thumping Christian. I rarely use or refer to Scripture when speaking to unbelievers because it does nothing for them.

Third, I am asking just how skeptical are you of being skeptical? In other words your world view (in relation to the Bible) states that there are no miracles, no supernatural. These are your presuppositions, not based on any prior evidence, but rather that you hold to that and then all that is spoken of in Scripture regarding miracles must be in error. So Jesus goes from God incarnate to a mere man, perhaps a very misguided and confused man at that. Do you not find it odd that certain "scholars" come along and state, "It's obvious Jesus never said that....BUT he must of said this" They are telling you what He did not say then telling you what He did in fact say but based on what? The rolling and choosing of dice?

Lastly, *IF* the Scriptures are real and authentic then your line of reasoning as to how these miracles will impede a persons understanding of Jesus is erroneous. The Scriptures speak of people in the sense of Believers and unbelievers. People are not saved because they grasp or understand the virgin birth or Jesus walking on water, people are saved because God calls them. Not because they did or didn't grasp Scripture.



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 10:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Granton
 

Jesus ALSO taught more about Hell than any other figure in the Bible....

Just sayin.



posted on Nov, 5 2009 @ 07:46 AM
link   
reply to post by TangoVooDoo
 


Fair question --- and actually I think I am skeptical of being skeptical. Even with what I hope is critical review - I am not an eternal fence sitter the way some "professional skeptics" are.

There were many years when I didn't put the effort into my faith that I try to now. For years I just accepted that the miracles in the Jesus stories happened - and it never impeded my want for a relationship with God.

I don't think my world-view eliminates the possibility of walking on water; it's just that walking on water isn't central to my faith.

As I have been put to task by non-believers trying to explain my faith, I've learned that things like virgin birth, walking on water, bodily resurrection are unfortunately immediate stumbling blocks for some people even trying to develop a faith. I'm not saying they should impede people's faith - it's just been my observation that they are. I have tried to promote that with or without those happenings, there is tremendous value in trying to let the wisdom of Jesus soak into you. And I have found, the more it soaks in, the less those stumbling blocks are even issues for that developing faith and spiritual awareness.

You've rightly noted the seemingly conflicting message of quoting Jesus while saying he may not have said what we read. I guess I lean on the scriptures trying to relay what I perceive as their intent. Now, that may sound just a little arrogant on my part ("What God meant here was..."), but we have to work with something - and while I don't get fussed about the extreme minutiae of every word examined - I think as fairly reasonable people taking into consideration the errors and omissions of translations, nuances lost from original language etc... we can extract a fairly good reasoning of what was meant by whom.

And yeah --- while I do get something out of reading Crossan and Borg (haven't read Funk) - I do have issues with the whole voting beads of the Jesus Seminar. (A colour coded version of the Gospels used to be available online -- not sure if it still is - would be interested in going through that again.) But that said, certain Jesus quotes kind of stick out like sore thumbs, ("Peter - you are the rock on which I will build my church.") I don't believe all of those things are malicious insertions - just something lost in the translation.

And I respectfully disagree with your dot connection of Jesus going to mere man because the miracles may or may not have happened. I think that the Jesus had a spiritual consciousness far greater than we have been able to develop or replicate - divinity incarnate if you will! And I acknowledge, that with that, the ability to return sight? Who knows? Was it his ability of the faith that he inspired that accomplished those things? Even if it was the latter, just faith inspired, I'd like to develop that sort of faith for my soul!

As to the presuppositions with which I approach the gospels - I think it would be impossible for me to totally divorce them from me --- I can't deny my life and experiences - I can try - but I doubt that I would be able to do that completely. Who could? Mr. Spock I guess.

So even with all of those struggles, I still find the Gospels real, vital, important and integral to my faith. And I'm not sure that struggles is the right word - I guess just process through which my faith has developed.

Going gently,

G.



posted on Nov, 5 2009 @ 12:23 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


This is exactly my point!!! Everyone said Jesus was all forgiving and loving, but he taught about death and going to hell, wouldn't that be him contradicting himself? Unless it is what people say, the scripture gets changed over centuries of time. Because no one knows really what Jesus said. You can say all you want about how you do know from the bible but truth be told, we will only know the exact words from Jesus if we were from his times.



posted on Nov, 5 2009 @ 07:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by Granton
 

Jesus ALSO taught more about Hell than any other figure in the Bible....

Just sayin.



You don't think some people are living in some kind of hell on earth right now? Maybe Jesus was talking about it to show people a way out.



posted on Nov, 5 2009 @ 11:04 PM
link   
I dont think so , in the scriptures it sounded pretty clear that if you dont belive in god you will burn in a lake of fire. lol



posted on Nov, 6 2009 @ 12:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Maddogkull
 
Well, yes and no, His entire message was about repentance, the urge the sinners to turn from their ways and follow God. his message was absolutely about love and forgiveness, but He also taught about hell more than any other man in the Bible, some people don't want forgivenesss, many people don't think they sin at all!



posted on Nov, 6 2009 @ 12:37 PM
link   
So as long as you know you have done something wrong, and feel sorry about it, you will be forgiven, and be saved??



posted on Nov, 6 2009 @ 01:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maddogkull
So as long as you know you have done something wrong, and feel sorry about it, you will be forgiven, and be saved??


Basically. Salvation is by the grace of God, a free gift to anyone who humbles themselves and asks for forgiveness.

Anyone who looks to Christ as the savior will be saved. Now, working for rewards from the Lord is pretty difficult. But worth it IMHO.



posted on Nov, 6 2009 @ 01:40 PM
link   
What do you mean by working for rewards?



posted on Nov, 6 2009 @ 07:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maddogkull
What do you mean by working for rewards?
The Lord said to "store up treasures in heaven". There are two different judgments of men. The "Great White Throne Judgment" which is the judgment of the lost souls at the end of the millennial reign of Christ on Earth, where their deeds are judged. There are different "levels" of Hell, remember when Christ said to those in Capernaum "It will be more tolerable for the cities of Soddom and Gomorrah on the day of Judgment than for you...". And all believers have to appear before the "Judgment Seat of Christ", which happens immediately upon their deaths. Where the believer's works are judged. Righteous works are given rewards, self-righteous works and bad deeds are given nothing.

No one at the GWTJ is saved, no one at the JCOC is lost to Hell. But both groups are judged for their deeds done in the flesh.



posted on Nov, 6 2009 @ 07:12 PM
link   
Different levels of hell?? Isn’t there just one lake of fire?



posted on Nov, 6 2009 @ 08:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Maddogkull
 


Yes, however Hell is quite different, Hell is where souls go while awaiting the final judgment. The GWTJ. There are different "levels" of the torments in Hell, and actually, the worst level is for ex-Christians, those who had the truth at one time then later rejected it. Revelations states that after the GWTJ death and Hell are cast into the Lake of Fire. Think of "Hell" as the holding cell at the courthouse, it's a "prison cell" yes, however it's not the penitentiary. That comes after the judge sentences one at their trial.

But hear me out, you don't want to go the EITHER one, lol.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join