How can a God of love send anybody to hell?

Originally posted by Brother Edwin
So he fails to create a rock he cant move, not very powerful at creating is he.

Did you read the post? How does failing make someone powerful?

Originally posted by Darfius
Did you read the post? How does failing make someone powerful?

His failure makes him NOT powerful.

So if the above premise is accurate, why is it not possible for the agnostic and the christian to peacefully co-exist without condemnation? The agnostic, at least my personal belief, does not discredit the accuracy of Christianity nor do I accept it. I just believe it is beyond the comprehension of mankind to accurately decipher. I feel the same with all religions.

Christianity, as indicated ...[text shortened]... Heaven but to be sentenced to Hell for believing in Mohammed or Buddha or Thor, for that matter.[/b]

"So if the above premise is accurate, why is it not possible for the agnostic and the christian to peacefully co-exist without condemnation? The agnostic, at least my personal belief, does not discredit the accuracy of Christianity nor do I accept it. I just believe it is beyond the comprehension of mankind to accurately decipher. I feel the same with all religions.[/b]"


The agnostic and the christan CAN co-exist peacefully. As a matter of fact as christians we are called to love our neighbors, not condemn them. Even Jesus associated himself with sinners, but yet He was without sin nor did He condone it. He gave Himself up for nonbelievers. Christ is our salvation. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through Him. And if you believe that there is a God and are deciding on which religion proves to be the most accurate to you, I think there are only three things you need to test: logical consistancy, empirical adequacy, and experential relevance. How else can you prove something as "true"? And ultimately, the answers that is provided through Christianity, I believe, epitomizes the quest in search of man's origin, morality, meaning, and destiny.

Originally posted by answer
"So if the above premise is accurate, why is it not possible for the agnostic and the christian to peacefully co-exist without condemnation? The agnostic, at least my personal belief, does not discredit the accuracy of Christianity nor do I accept it. I just believe it is beyond the comprehension of mankind to accurately decipher. I feel the same with all ...[text shortened]... ity, I believe, epitomizes the quest in search of man's origin, morality, meaning, and destiny.

The agnostic and the christan CAN co-exist peacefully. As a matter of fact as christians we are called to love our neighbors, not condemn them. Even Jesus associated himself with sinners, but yet He was without sin nor did He condone it. He gave Himself up for nonbelievers. Christ is our salvation. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through Him. And if you believe that there is a God and are deciding on which religion proves to be the most accurate to you, I think there are only three things you need to test: logical consistancy, empirical adequacy, and experential relevance. How else can you prove something as "true"? And ultimately, the answers that is provided through Christianity, I believe, epitomizes the quest in search of man's origin, morality, meaning, and destiny.

Thank you answer,

So let me ask you this? Do you, as a Christian (assuming that is what you are), also share the held belief by other Christians here that all non-Christians are bound for Hell regardless of the life they lead because they have not accepted Christ? If so, then I argue all Christians and non-Christians cannot peacefully co-exist because, at least exhibited here in these postings, the Christian believes it is part of their duty to Christ to lead the non-Christians to the “righteous path”. They believe the path of the non-Christian (whatever that may be) is the wrong path. For this reason I cannot find the logical consistency, empirical adequacy, or experiential relevance in it.

Originally posted by Joe Fist
[b] The agnostic and the christan CAN co-exist peacefully. As a matter of fact as christians we are called to love our neighbors, not condemn them. Even Jesus associated himself with sinners, but yet He was without sin nor did He condone it. He gave Himself up for nonbelievers. Christ is our salvation. For God did not send his Son into the world to con ...[text shortened]... ason I cannot find the logical consistency, empirical adequacy, or experiential relevance in it.

It is our duty to love, and live a Christ-like life, and thereby showing nonbelievers the joy and hope we have in Christ. It is NOT our duty, however, to hit people over their heads with the bible and point fingers at them telling them that they are going to hell. Whenever I meet someone, and find out that he/she is not a christian, the first thing out of my mouth would NEVER be "you're going to hell". I still don't quite understand why you say that christians and non-christians cannot co-exist peacefully. I find that I get along with non-christians just fine. As a matter of fact, I find that it is the non-christians who have a harder time accepting my way of life and my beliefs as an individual than me accepting their beliefs in this pluralistic society. In fact, aren't people contradicting themselves as they push forth the post-modern political correctedness of being open-minded about everything, but yet condemn the Christian faith? I guess herein lies the argument.. that someone is fine in believing whatever they want to believe in just as long as they don't push their beliefs on any other persons; that no one faith is correct, but rather all faiths are acceptable. But isn't that a belief (worldview) in and of itself? Doesn't that make an exclusive claim as well? Isn't the rejection of the Christian faith, or any other kind of faith for that matter, a belief in and of itself?

To answer your question, as a christian, I do not believe that one can continue this life with a pluralistic point of view about God and truth and expect to end up in heaven. It is fine for a person to say that he/she cannot accept or deny the Christian faith due to our limited capacities as humans. However, I also believe that the genuine seeker of truth will find it...unfortunately, it will only amount to the authenticity of his/her search and to his/her pleasing, but we all have different paths, and come from different walks of life. Ultimately, there is only one truth... it is up to us whether or not we accept the clues for it presented to us in our own lives.

Originally posted by Brother Edwin
His failure makes him NOT powerful.

He's failing by being unable to fail? You're a class act.

Originally posted by darvlay
A very safe answer, if I've ever heard one.

Your analogy is appropriate. But in the eyes of your God, these people [those who will never hear the gospel] are no worse or better than Paul Bernardo, Suddam Hussein, or Jeffrey Dahmer (actually he's in heaven right now, basking in eternal paradise - nevermind) and personally, I can't see how God's mercy ...[text shortened]... or fair if we are all on a different playing field. They end up being victims of circumstance.

Why do you limit God? The point is to share God's grace and mercy,
and nothing, and I do mean nothing can stand between us and the
love of God. You seem to think that there are people or conditions
to great for God to reach, this isn't true. However, again if we do not
share how will they hear? It is a relationship that we are called into,
and one that God tells us to share. So let me ask you this, if someone
today only reads the debate board now that spiritual matters are
pushed into here, if hearing and believing the Word is kept from them
is it our fault or God's?
Kelly

Originally posted by Darfius
I've answered this question. Refer back to there.

Your answer was unsatisfactory

Originally posted by blindfaith101
Man has free will as long as is alive in this life. GOD give man his entire life to accept CHRIST as his SAVIOR. It is man's free will that allows him to accept or reject CHRIST. Once that man has entered in Hell, he no longer has free will. He has chosen to go to hell, and be punished as all sinners soon will be.

Here is the rest of the discussion with darfius in case you missed it:-

..............................................................................................

With regards to free will, it is not asking for it and then disregarding it. The rich man didn't ask for it, it was handed to him by god. So if we say that god then respects his wishes and send him to hell (as he is an unbeliever) then..

If god then takes away the mans free will, he would be unable to do anything for himself, he would be like a robot or computer carrying out or waiting for instructions. But we can reject this because of the luke passage as the original rich man clearly asked questions.

Maybe god instructed the rich man to ask the questions, but then this just makes the whole passage, PR or spin, god bending the truth ? one would have to ask why ? But I think we can rule this out because of the daftness of it.

So I think we can safely assume that the man still has free will. Which would mean that he would be able to change his mind. God therefore either respects this new will and follows his own teaching of forgiveness (which makes the doctrine about only being forgiven in this life incorrect) or he does not respect this new will, does not forgive the man (Thus not following his own teaching and making him a hypocrite).

If god is the supreme being he is unlikely to be a hypocrite, so it stands to reason that christian doctrine is wrong. There is an old saying which kind of confirms this it goes "to err is human to forgive divine".
---------------------------------------------------------------------

So tell me is god a hypocrite or is christain doctrine wrong ?

Originally posted by Darfius
He's failing by being unable to fail? You're a class act.

No, hes failing because hes failing. He lacks the power to create a rock he cant move, therefore he fails.

Originally posted by Brother Edwin
No, hes failing because hes failing. He lacks the power to create a rock he cant move, therefore he fails.

Actually what you are saying is that he is failing to fail.

Do you understand what you are saying?

Ever heard of self-contradiction? Maybe you should do your thesis on it.🙂

Originally posted by dj2becker
Actually what you are saying is that he is failing to fail.

Do you understand what you are saying?

Ever heard of self-contradiction? Maybe you should do your thesis on it.🙂

Let me put it to you simple. The rock is X.
Can he create X?
No.
He is not all powerful.

Originally posted by answer
It is our duty to love, and live a Christ-like life, and thereby showing nonbelievers the joy and hope we have in Christ. It is NOT our duty, however, to hit people over their heads with the bible and point fingers at them telling them that they are going to hell. Whenever I meet someone, and find out that he/she is not a christian, the first thing out of m ...[text shortened]... th... it is up to us whether or not we accept the clues for it presented to us in our own lives.

As a non-christian, I have no issues with Christianity itself. I have also said there is a great deal of value to be gained from the ideas in the Bible as well as the other commonly accepted world religions. I do have several close friends who are christian and we have a mutual respect for our own beliefs even if we don’t necessarily agree with them. I suppose the belief that all beliefs are acceptable is in itself a belief and it could be making an exclusive claim. The same could be said for rejecting any belief, the atheist. I have never questioned this to begin with. My question has and still is how does man attempt to understand the plan or logic of a god? I am extremely comfortable with the knowledge (or perhaps lack of knowledge) that I can’t. I think it’s nice and important to live the best quality life one can and to be good to others (as described in Christianity, Buddhism, and other religions). I respect your view as a christian that non-christians may not enter heaven. The truth, as you indicated and for me, is a singular journey and so far the clues presented have taken me on a different path. Maybe we will end up in the same place and maybe we won’t. The point I think you understand quite well is, unless it is destructive, all paths should be traveled without persecution.

Originally posted by Brother Edwin
Let me put it to you simple. The rock is X.
Can he create X?
No.
He is not all powerful.

Anything that can be done, God can do. As it has been pointed out
before by others, no one no matter how good they are at drawing
can draw a square circle, it isn't a circle if it is square. The same with
the stupid rock question and God.
Kelly