What Happens if I Don't Want to go to Heaven or Hell, is there a choice?

Originally posted by milkyway12
QUESTION 4:

Those who reject Jesus Christ cannot enter into the presence of God, and so must be separated from Him until the white throne judgment. The Bible gives several lists of people who will not be in heaven. A summary of the activities that keep people out of heaven is listed in the table below.

What Sends You to Hell?



idolatry ,adultery,prostitution,theft,greed,drunkenness,swindling,impurity,witchcraft,discord,jealousy,fits of rage,dissensions,factions and envy,orgies,lying,cowardice,unbelief,sorcery,sexual immorality,homosexual offenses,slander,hatred,selfish ambition,abomination,murder

Then I suppose the hell is full house. Everyone is condemned to heaven.

reply to post by Leahn

The Bible speaks of three ultimate destinies to people. One, you may go to Heaven. Two, you may stay on Earth. Three, you may be annihilated.

The stance of the Bible on those that did not have a chance to hear about God's world is pretty simple. They will have a chance to hear it and make up their minds during the judgement period.

Who stays on Earth?
Deciding for themselves would negate a judgment because they become their own judge and in the situation where they are confronted by overwhelming evidence and compelling reality to their near fate, they would of course accept whatever is presented to them. So this is ludicrous to even somehow lump it into a judgement. People who have not heard the Gospel will be judged by how they dealt with what they did know.

Hi Dave


Ceasing to exist is something i would never ask for , that's precisely the reason there is a cycle of death and rebirth. The life that you have lived is merely in 3 dimensions which is limited by your body.

Once you really start experiencing fully what the universe has to offer you would not want to just vanish away away into nothingness...

I originally started this thread yesterday with one question in mind. The question was:-

Why do you want to go to heaven?

Even though there has been quite a few replies to my original thread, some from people who believe in heaven and hell, and some that don't. I am still a little perplexed, due to the fact that nobody has really explained in much detail why they want to go to heaven. I suppose the other question I would like to be answered is:-

When you do go to heaven, what do you propose to do when you finally get there?

Maybe I am missing the point somewhere with what people have written within their reply posts. Is heaven supposed to be a place that at this moment in time a mere mortal cannot even comprehend, let alone be able to understand what wondrous things are waiting when he/she gets there.

There are many activities, likes and loves that people have been doing and experiencing here on earth for many years. Some of the things that people do on earth are loved so much that they are more or less addicted to them. So is this what heaven has to offer? If for example you love scuba diving and swimming to the depths of the ocean, going as deep as you can and bathing in awe at the surroundings of beautiful coral and sea life around you. You love this activity so much that it has become an addiction, then will diving in heaven take you to a higher realm of addictive diving ecstasy.

For some people that would be heaven.

A writer in an earlier post stated that nobody knows what heaven or indeed hell is like because nobody has been there yet to find out. The only way that you will know what either of them is like is when you eventually leave this life.

Not being a great scholar of biblical text, surly the bible must state what is heaven is going to be like and what is going to happen when they get there, otherwise, why would people be so adamant and keen to try and get others there as well as themselves.

I still don't get it, there must be an easy answer to this wanting to get to heaven idea........

So why do you want to go to heaven?

reply to post by davethebear
When a lot of Christians say Heaven, they may be referring to something better described as the afterlife, or kingdom come. An actual heaven such as a city in the sky is more symbolic and not the literal place where the saints spend eternity. Where they would, is just the world we live in today but restored to a pristine planet before corruption and people would build homes and cultivate gardens and have social meetings but without being afraid of getting jumped by thugs on the way to their friend's house, or something like that.

Originally posted by bogomil
As a part input, not answering directly to the questions in OP, but rather adding to the various pro- and contra theist arguments in the PR scenarios offered, I once calculated, that in the scenario of the 144.000 select to sit by the side of Jesus, the one at the end of the line would be sitting some 50 miles from the man.

I'm quite sure that a lot of such small details have been conveniently forgotten in the eagerness of pushing the product.

It seems to me that those calculations were done considering the seats placed in a linear fashion. Can you redo the calculations considering the placement of the seats to be done in a 4d environment?

Originally posted by jmdewey60
Who stays on Earth?

Those not meant for Heaven. The Bible says that those that go to Heaven go there to reign together with Christ. Has no one ever stopped to consider that a kingdom needs subjects?

Originally posted by jmdewey60
Deciding for themselves would negate a judgment because they become their own judge and in the situation where they are confronted by overwhelming evidence and compelling reality to their near fate, they would of course accept whatever is presented to them. So this is ludicrous to even somehow lump it into a judgement.

You're incorrect. If even demons, who have seen God face to face, betrayed Him, what makes you think that humans would behave differently?

Have you never read in the Bible of the history of Nimrod, a man who made the purpose of his life to oppose God? Should I also mention the example of Judas, who despite possessing overwhelming evidence of Jesus being the son of God, the promissed Messiah, loved money more and betrayed Jesus for 30 silver coins? How many times have the Israelites in the Biblical times, despite the overwhelming evidence and compelling reality of a personal relationship with God, went on to disobey God's commandments and do as they saw please?

What's ludicrous is to believe that, in a society that is becoming increasingly secular, even anti-religious, when people are told from a wee age that "believe in God is a delusion" and people cite as a gospel words of men that have publicly declared that, if God appeared to them face to face they would be more inclined to think of themselves hallucinating than to believe it to be real, in such society you would believe that history would not repeat itself, that manking somehow changed its nature and would do differently this time.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
People who have not heard the Gospel will be judged by how they dealt with what they did know.

No. Paul said that God did not take into account the times of ignorance.

reply to post by Leahn

You're incorrect. If even demons, who have seen God face to face, betrayed Him, what makes you think that humans would behave differently?

That is an assumption (that they "have seen God face to face") that you can not verify.
Something similar to that, which actually is in the New Testament says that if angels will receive harsh judgement, how can you expect to be treated otherwise?

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by Leahn

 

You're incorrect. If even demons, who have seen God face to face, betrayed Him, what makes you think that humans would behave differently?

That is an assumption (that they "have seen God face to face") that you can not verify.
Something similar to that, which actually is in the New Testament says that if angels will receive harsh judgement, how can you expect to be treated otherwise?

Yes, it is an assumption. Yet, it is hardly relevant. You're missing the point. The central point of the argument is that demons do not lack evidence for God's existence, yet they still betrayed God all the same. You claim that humans wouldn't do it, despite the plethora of evidence in contrary from past interactions with God, despite evidence is contrary that evidence of God's existence has never swayed neither humans nor demons in the past.

I'd like the quote from New Testament saying what you're claiming it says.

Even though it, too, is irrelevant as angels never lacked any evidence for God's existence, so you cannot compare people that never even heard of God to angels that never lacked evidence of His existence. They're in two completely different categories.

reply to post by Leahn

. . .I'd like the quote from New Testament saying what you're claiming it says.

That doesn't ring a bell with you? Odd seeing how you were boasting of your biblical prowess. That is a paraphrase and the exact quote may be worded slightly differently. I am not your concordance so look it up. You obviously are on the internet so press a couple keys, dude. What you are doing is using your own confidence in logic to get you out of a jam and overwhelm your opponents with flashy looking reasoning and show yourself to be a model after Satan, himself and not of God. I hope you don't start crying because I said that but unless one is converted they will never enter heaven. To the point, in case anyone is wondering what this post is even about, it is about who does or does not go to heaven or hell. I believe there is a judgement based on the works of the individual. In contrast, my respondent claims that those without the benefit of hearing the Gospel during their lifetime will be resurrected, told the Gospel, and then decide if it seems ok to them, then they go on into heaven. I don't think that is at all true, based on my belief that the test of what is true or not is how it compares to the New Testament. Making stuff up and teaching it to others is not a good idea for those who will have to eventually give account for those lost souls that they were responsible for sending to hell. I would ask such teachers to examine themselves to see if there is any idolatry in their hearts and to ask God to remove it from them. My respondent has demonstrated his knowledge of truth be be beyond that of the wisdom of God and so I was merely pointing that out. I do not know this person, personally, nor do I have the ability to determine the nature of his heart but it seems there is evidence enough to raise suspicion that there could be a problem in the salvation category in this person's life. I am trying to be helpful and not being derogatory for some sense of gratification or desire to make someone feel bad about themselves. I am suggesting that prayer and meditation, thought and study would be a good prescription for anyone and I would like to say so, if that is ok.

reply to post by Leahn

Yes, it is an assumption. Yet, it is hardly relevant. You're missing the point. The central point of the argument is that demons do not lack evidence for God's existence, yet they still betrayed God all the same.

It's an easy way to polarize morality:-

GOD = ALL GOOD
DEMONS = ALL BAD
HUMANS = NEED GOD.

Unfortunately for God, he's proved himself to be tyrannical, inpatient, homophobic and racist. It's all their in scripture.

Because God liked Abel's animal sacrifice more than Cain's vegetables, Cain kills his brother Abel in a fit of religious jealousy. 4:8

"Every living substance that I have made will I destroy."
God repeats his intention to kill "every living substance ... from off the face of the earth." But why does God kill all the innocent animals? What had they done to deserve his wrath? It seems God never gets his fill of tormenting animals. 7:4

Obvious death is a part of life, but i don't believe God is willing to destroy them; because i don't believe in God.

"All flesh died that moved upon the earth."
God drowns everything that breathes air. From newborn babies to koala bears -- all creatures great and small, the Lord God drowned them all. 7:21-23

God tells Abram to kill some animals for him. The needless slaughter makes God feel better. 15:9-10

Etiher God is real or they mean to personify nature......

Unfortunately, i'm quite sure they truly believe that an entity with human characterists is willing all these (natural) disasters, destruction of life.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by Leahn

 

. . .I'd like the quote from New Testament saying what you're claiming it says.

That doesn't ring a bell with you? Odd seeing how you were boasting of your biblical prowess. That is a paraphrase and the exact quote may be worded slightly differently. I am not your concordance so look it up.

I can cite entire passages of the Bible from heart, I have twenty-plus years of experience studying it, and no, it doesn't ring a bell. I tried, *very hard*, to remember any passage saying anything similar than what you said, and I couldn't remember of any. Although my memory is as faulty as everyone else's, this may be the first time in years in which I could not remember the passage when someone cited it.

However, it is up to you, not me, to prove your point. If you claim that the Bible says something, you should be able to provide the reference, instead of demanding people to do your research for you. So, no, I am not gonna look it up. It is your job to provide the references to your own arguments. Either provide the reference or admit it doesn't exist.

I believe there is a judgement based on the works of the individual. In contrast, my respondent claims that those without the benefit of hearing the Gospel during their lifetime will be resurrected, told the Gospel, and then decide if it seems ok to them, then they go on into heaven.

No, I didn't said "then they go on into heaven." That's your own strawmen pilling up upon more strawmen arguments. The Bible disagrees with you. Paul said that "God didn't take into account the times of ignorance." You claim that the Bible says otherwise somewhere, but you cannot provide where it supports your position. You simply cannot counterargue such straightfoward passage. It is just your belief against what the Bible says. Whom should people trust? You, or the word of God?

Making stuff up and teaching it to others is not a good idea for those who will have to eventually give account for those lost souls that they were responsible for sending to hell.

I am not "making stuff up". I am citing Paul's teachings.

I would ask such teachers to examine themselves to see if there is any idolatry in their hearts and to ask God to remove it from them. My respondent has demonstrated his knowledge of truth be be beyond that of the wisdom of God and so I was merely pointing that out.

edit on 5-7-2011 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)

Ad hominems, ad hominems, ad hominems. Those who cannot counterargue, offend. It is the last resort of those that cannot admit to being wrong.

Originally posted by ExistentialNightmare
reply to post by Leahn

 

The central point of the argument is that demons do not lack evidence for God's existence, yet they still betrayed God all the same.

It's an easy way to polarize morality:-

GOD = ALL GOOD
DEMONS = ALL BAD
HUMANS = NEED GOD.

Unfortunately for God, he's proved himself to be tyrannical, inpatient, homophobic and racist. It's all their in scripture.

edit on 6-7-2011 by ExistentialNightmare because: (no reason given)

Whether God "has proved himself" the things you claim is subjected to one's own opinion as, the way I see, God has never been on trial for those things, and, on the dim hypothesis that you consider that "yes, He has," so far He has not been able to present His own version of the events, a step necessary for a fair trial.

However, this in no way addresses my argument, the central point of it quoted above, and even worse, it is completely off-topic.

reply to post by Leahn


Your point was that demons were disobedient despite knowledge of God's existence (which isn't a fact, it's what the bible or yourself claims) but i'll entertain your hypothetical......

My point was that humans either reading doctrine, or witnessing death, destruction, disease, cancer, infant death could easily convict God of being tyrannical and capricious.

You say "we havn't heard his side of the story" - In regards to the annilation of life on Earth (the great flood) - What would be his defence? "They were bad so i drowned them all?" - I'd love to see that stand up in court.

AND...In reference to Judgment day; God is the Judge Jury and Executioner; there can be no appeal, you can bring no laywer.

This post is very much related to the OP: "What Happens if I Don't Want to go to Heaven or Hell, is there a choice?"

reply to post by Leahn

However, it is up to you, not me, to prove your point.

No because I did not use that passage to support an argument. All I was saying was that it was the one that comes to mind to me, which would be something close to what you were saying the Bible says somewhere.
I then used the fact that you could not think of where that passage came from to point out your fallacy in an earlier post, before I made any reply to you at all, about how no one can win an argument against you.
That may be true but it is not based on a biblical understanding and has to do with your tactics of destroying a debate to have the ruins of it to end up slanted in your direction.
My further claim is that this is not the signs of a regenerated soul but of a prideful one.
So ad hominem is not appropriate of a charge against me because my point is not so much of the technicalities of a philosophical issue but what good being "right" does you in the fate of your immortal soul.

Originally posted by ExistentialNightmare
reply to post by Leahn

 

Your point was that demons were disobedient despite knowledge of God's existence (which isn't a fact, it's what the bible or yourself claims) but i'll entertain your hypothetical......

My point was that humans either reading doctrine, or witnessing death, destruction, disease, cancer, infant death could easily convict God of being tyrannical and capricious.

Yes, so much I understood. I am not asking what your point is. I am asking how does this addresses what I said? How does one convicting God of being tyrannical and capricious change the fact that evidence of God's existence has never prevented demons or humans of betraying God in the past, and that there is no indication that history will not repeat itself in the upcoming day of judgement?

How does one convicting God of being tyrannical and capricious change the fact that past experiences of interaction between God and His creations has shown that possessing evidence of His existence has not been meaningful in one's decision to either support or resist God's will, and that this is evidence that the original poster's claim that once evidence of God's existence is present, no one will have no choice but to take God's side is incorrect?

Moreso, if one is trully convinced that God is tyrannical and capricious as you say He is, as well as all-powerful, shouldn't that compel people to obey Him even more carefully lest they incur on His merciless wrath? After all, do we obey the quickest to the gentle requests of the harmless, or to the mugger pointing the gun to our face?

You say "we havn't heard his side of the story" - In regards to the annilation of life on Earth (the great flood) - What would be his defence? "They were bad so i drowned them all?" - I'd love to see that stand up in court.

And your point is? That you cannot conceive what would His defence be, therefore it is non-defensible? Or is it that since you (and for that matter, myself) cannot conceive what His defence would be, we shouldn't waste time with a trial?

AND...In reference to Judgment day; God is the Judge Jury and Executioner; there can be no appeal, you can bring no laywer.

What good would a laywer do to you?

reply to post by Leahn

How does one convicting God of being tyrannical and capricious change the fact that evidence of God's existence has never prevented demons or humans of betraying God in the past, and that there is no indication that history will not repeat itself in the upcoming day of judgement?

Before making further convictions; you have the trouble of proving that God exists, and that demons exist, and that upon death; judgement will follow.

For all you know; reincarnation could be true; or there may not be any supernatural judge; it's just guessing games.

Hellfire and heaven are unfalsifiable theories; What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.

They are clearly eternal threats, and i'm quite confident in saying they are untrue, and fearmongering tactics employed by those who wrote scripture and preached by those believe scripture.

I can post the chapter, edited to the parts I thought apply.

These false teachers will infiltrate your midst with destructive heresies,. . . As a result, they will bring swift destruction on themselves. . . many will follow their . . . lifestyles. Because of these false teachers. . . their destruction is not asleep. For if God did not spare the angels who sinned, but threw them into hell and locked them up in chains in utter darkness, to be kept until the judgment, . . .and if he did not spare the ancient world, but . . .brought a flood on an ungodly world, and if he turned to ashes the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah . . . then the Lord knows how to . . .reserve the unrighteous for punishment at the day of judgment, . . .those who indulge their fleshly desires . . .Brazen and insolent, they are not afraid to insult the glorious ones, . . . But these men, . . .do not understand whom they are insulting, and consequently . . .they will be destroyed,. . .These men are . . .speaking high-sounding but empty words they are able to entice,. . .these false teachers promise such people freedom, . . .whatever a person succumbs to, to that he is enslaved. . . their last state has become worse for them than their first.

I cut out the elaboration but the point is that there is no escaping the consequences of doing evil, that God does not even spare the angels, or anyone else, even those who know the truth, if they do not convert their souls. God is instrumental in that conversion, we can not do it ourselves but we must be willing participants.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by Leahn
No because I did not use that passage to support an argument. All I was saying was that it was the one that comes to mind to me, which would be something close to what you were saying the Bible says somewhere.

Ok, so allow me to ignore it as non-pertinent to the discussion. You still have to provide any evidence, if you have any, supporting your side that people's actions will be used to judge them, despite they not knowing about God, even though Paul specifically addresses this and says otherwise.

The way I see is that, you provided nothing to support your argument and you're accusing me of "making stuff up", even though I provided evidence to support my argument, while you admited yourself that you're only stating your own beliefs.

I then used the fact that you could not think of where that passage came from to point out your fallacy in an earlier post, before I made any reply to you at all, about how no one can win an argument against you.

If you consider saying, "I believe differently, will not provide any evidence for my beliefs, and will not attempt to counterargue your evidence for your beliefs, but I still declare myself right" to win an argument, you're welcome to your win. I will still hold to the reality that you did not win the argument.

That may be true but it is not based on a biblical understanding and has to do with your tactics of destroying a debate to have the ruins of it to end up slanted in your direction.

It is called "deconstruction". Its origem amount to a French philosopher Jacques Derrida. Although I admit to using it in a completely different way than Derrida intended it to be used. However, you're incorrect that it is not based on biblical understanding. I can defend my side using the Bible. Proving myself right, however, is not enough. I still need to prove you wrong, and logic is a better tool to do it than a contest to see which one of us can cite the most passages of the Bible.

My further claim is that this is not the signs of a regenerated soul but of a prideful one.

Yes, I am prideful.

So ad hominem is not appropriate of a charge against me because my point is not so much of the technicalities of a philosophical issue but what good being "right" does you in the fate of your immortal soul.

Ad ad hominem is still an ad hominem if you did not address my arguments. And if I am right and you're wrong, it does me no good, but what good being wrong does to your soul?

reply to post by Leahn

. . .supporting your side that people's actions will be used to judge them, despite they not knowing about God, even though Paul specifically addresses this and says otherwise.

You don't really elaborate on that to show how Paul says what you are saying.
Obviously people who never heard the Gospel can not be judged by the Gospel message and how they have accepted it. The solution to that is not that they are then, after their life is completed, to be told the Gospel in some kind of holding area at the gates of Heaven and Hell.
My greater point is that all people are judged by what they were given and those given more, more will be expected from him. For example, you have studied the Bible for 20 plus years so God will demand quite a bit from you.

Originally posted by ExistentialNightmare
reply to post by Leahn

 

Before making further convictions; you have the trouble of proving that God exists, and that demons exist, and that upon death; judgement will follow.

Atheists never cease to amuse me with their predictable behavior to derail every single theological discussion off-topic demanding that we have to first prove that God exists. That He exists, that the judgement will follow, and that Heaven and Hell exist is pressuposed on the OP's question. I don't have to prove anything that is already granted to me as true before the discussion even began.

Again, I will ask, in what way do you considerations address what I said? Moreso, I ask further, why should I keep entertaining the discussion with you if you do not desire to keep yourself on-topic, and if you keep ignoring my arguments?

What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.

I'd like the evidence for this. Lest I, you know, dismiss it without evidence.

They are clearly eternal threats, and i'm quite confident in saying they are untrue, and fearmongering tactics employed by those who wrote scripture and preached by those believe scripture.

edit on 6-7-2011 by ExistentialNightmare because: (no reason given)

Ok, that I usually like to entertain. Since you're so confident, prove. I'd like the evidence that it is not true. Lest I, again, dismiss your statements without evidence, by your own criteria.