Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Will a "good" atheist go to hell?

P

Punk-O-Rama

Guest
I mean, lets see, a christian who does believe in god, but is a murderer, raper, or a junkie, will go to hell (even if they regret it), but an atheist/agnostic that has lived his life peacefully, hasnt commander all the little details of the bible (contraception, etc), but is a good guy.

Which one will go to hell?
 
Punk-O-Rama said:
I mean, lets see, a christian who does believe in god, but is a murderer, raper, or a junkie, will go to hell (even if they regret it), but an atheist/agnostic that has lived his life peacefully, hasnt commander all the little details of the bible (contraception, etc), but is a good guy.

Which one will go to hell?

Sputnik: Well, that's not such a dumb question as I first thought. There are those on this board who truly believe that 'loving God with all one's heart, soul and mind' means that one is therefore free to do as they please. Strange logic! But, when the general consensus of mainstream Christianity is that 'grace' pretty much cancels out the need for obedience to God's commands, what else WOULD some believe? Much present-day Christian doctrine encourages this form of 'way out' philosophy. It seems that 'Christianity without commitment' is fast becoming the norm. Someone on the board gave the analogy of today's Christian Churches with that of a 'fast food outlet'.

My answer to your question - 'Which one will go to hell?' - would have been, 'the one who never truly professes that Jesus Christ is Lord'. These days, however, especially since becoming involved with others on this board, I'm not so sure of the answer any more. I'd like to see some of the responses to your question from the OSAS supporters.
 
Punk-O-Rama said:
I mean, lets see, a christian who does believe in god, but is a murderer, raper, or a junkie, will go to hell (even if they regret it), but an atheist/agnostic that has lived his life peacefully, hasnt commander all the little details of the bible (contraception, etc), but is a good guy.

Which one will go to hell?
Short answer: Jesus is the only way, gate, etc. So, the "good atheist" is still gonna burn.

We know that the thief on the cross was promised salvation (Luke 23:43), even though his crimes earned him the highest form of punishment administered by the Romans. However, Revelation 19:8 tells us that when we do get to heaven, we are clothed in, basically, our righteous deeds. So, I'm thinkin' that the thief on the cross may not be clothed very well. I only mention this because it suggests that even we Christians are to be judged and awarded accordingly.
 
The Catholic Church teaches that the atheist can obtain eternal life if he leads a moral life and through no fault of his own has never been taught about God and His truthes or if He has it was not good evangilization and did not leave the atheist with the smallest inkling that God exists.

On the other hand he can go to Hell if he has been taught about God, had faith and then became and atheist. Or if he had heard about Christ from some one and had an impulse that this may be the truth but did not look into it further.

It all depends on the circumstances and even then we cannot judge and it all comes down to the great mercy of God when we die.
 
notapseudonym said:
The Catholic Church teaches that the atheist can obtain eternal life if he leads a moral life and through no fault of his own has never been taught about God and His truthes or if He has it was not good evangilization and did not leave the atheist with the smallest inkling that God exists.

On the other hand he can go to Hell if he has been taught about God, had faith and then became and atheist. Or if he had heard about Christ from some one and had an impulse that this may be the truth but did not look into it further.

It all depends on the circumstances and even then we cannot judge and it all comes down to the great mercy of God when we die.
We know that it is God's will that all men would be saved (Titus 2:4). But what causes me to question the Catholic view on this issue is the theory based on Ephesians 4:8. Some believe that the "captive" referred to are those who died before Jesus' crucifixion and became believers when Jesus went into hell upon His death. While the Bible doesn't seem to be clear on this, I think it is a strong possibility.

Another thing to consider is Ephesians 2:9, "Not of works, lest any man should boast."

This is a hard line I'm about to take, but for those who live in athiestic countries (such as the far east), I'm wondering if the "sins of the father" rule applies?

The bottom line here is (I think) Titus 2:4. It would seem reasonable for God to make some provision for those who did not hear the gospel during their life on earth. I'm just not sure what that is, according to the Bible anyway.
 
So we both agree that the atheist that has not heard the gospel are relying on God's mercy?
 
Punk-O-Rama,

Define "good". What is "good"? What is "good" according to you or society in general and what is "good" according to God?
 
notapseudonym said:
So we both agree that the atheist that has not heard the gospel are relying on God's mercy?
I think we agree that it depends on the circumstances. The thing with the "moral life" idea is that it seems to contradict Ephesians 2:9. Sooner or later a person must accept Jesus as Savior. I think the Bible is very clear on that. It's the "how" and "when" that gets foggy.
 
Free said:
Punk-O-Rama,

Define "good". What is "good"? What is "good" according to you or society in general and what is "good" according to God?

i mean a "moral" life... he doesnt like to kill people, lives an honest life, he isnt a thieve, etc...helps the poor, not because he wants to be given something in return by god, but because he wants...

and he was once a christian as a boy, but then became to doubt about it... btw is doubt a sin? coz if there is a god, he must have given us a brain to think... i mean jesus could be very well a legend, based on a man with very good ideas, maybe did things no1 could understand, so people believed him he was the son of god, and wrote it on a book... i mean common we havnt seen him or talked to him, and there is no hint whatso ever there is a god, just faith in that there is, coz we cant explain or origins, so it may be possible man created god...
just a point of view
 
In this conversation one would do well to examine the story of the Good Samaritan who was held up high as an example for the Apostles to follow. Now who were the Samaritans? They were a product of the intermarrying of the Jews and Assyrians during the Northern Captivity. They mixed the Assyrican religion with that of the Jews such that the God of Israel was recognized, but as a God among many gods. They were pagans essentially. The scriptures also tell us that one who knows is held to be more accountable than the one who does not know.

Luke 12
[42] And the Lord said, "Who then is the faithful and wise steward, whom his master will set over his household, to give them their portion of food at the proper time?
[43] Blessed is that servant whom his master when he comes will find so doing.
[44] Truly, I say to you, he will set him over all his possessions.
[45] But if that servant says to himself, `My master is delayed in coming,' and begins to beat the menservants and the maidservants, and to eat and drink and get drunk,
[46] the master of that servant will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he does not know, and will punish him, and put him with the unfaithful.
[47] And that servant who knew his master's will, but did not make ready or act according to his will, shall receive a severe beating.
[48] But he who did not know, and did what deserved a beating, shall receive a light beating. Every one to whom much is given, of him will much be required; and of him to whom men commit much they will demand the more.

There is a greater reward for those who know but a harsher judgement if they do not act on what they know.

All men have some accountability as Romans 2:15 clearly states:

[13] For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified.
[14] When Gentiles who have not the law do by nature what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law.
[15] They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or perhaps excuse them
[16] on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.
[17]

The Law of God is written on all men's hearts so that they must follow their conscience. These are some scriptural evidences for Catholic theology in these areas.

blessings
 
I mean, lets see, a christian who does believe in God, but is a murderer, raper, or a junkie, will go to hell (even if they regret it), but an atheist/agnostic that has lived his life peacefully, hasnt commander all the little details of the bible (contraception, etc), but is a good guy.

Which one will go to hell?

Well, I agree that the Christian will go to hell. Believing in something does not mean that you follow it. Just like the Adversary believes in Jesus.

Now, I do believe that the atheist will go to hell but not in the way that most Christian's think. I believe in the Universal Reconsiliation of all souls to God. Therefore I do not believe that the atheist and the Christian will be tormented for all eternity by a sadistic and loveless God. Hell will just be as long as they need for them to shed away their sinful nature. By which my saying, the Atheist will probably get out of hell quicker then the Psychotic Christian.
 
And since the issue has been brought up, I would like to take this time to remind those who have been around and point out to those who are new that the doctrine of Universal Reconciliation (UR) is banned in these forums. Any further discussion of it will result in editing of posts and warnings.

Please see the following link for more info:

http://www.christianforums.net/viewtopic.php?t=13702


P-O-R said:
i mean a "moral" life... he doesnt like to kill people, lives an honest life, he isnt a thieve, etc...helps the poor, not because he wants to be given something in return by god, but because he wants...
So then does this definition of good line up with God's definition of good? To me it sounds more like someone doing just enough to get by - like students in school who don't care to excell, they just do enough to pass so they can graduate.

I would also question anyone, Christian or not, who helps the poor just because they want to and not because it simply is something they ought to do. People who do things because they want to typically derive some sort of pleasure or self-fulfillment out of doing these things. For example, someone may help the poor because it makes them happy or they want to appear to be a good person. But then it is done out of selfishness and not because one ought to help one who is in need.

P-O-R said:
and he was once a christian as a boy, but then became to doubt about it... btw is doubt a sin?
No, doubting is not a sin. But rejecting God is the ultimate sin.

P-O-R said:
coz if there is a god, he must have given us a brain to think
And the Bible makes it clear that God expects us to use it.

P-O-R said:
i mean common we havnt seen him or talked to him
Just a slight correction: "you haven't seen him or talked with him". Thousands and thousands, including at least one in this forum, claim to have had visions, almost visitations, of Jesus and angels. Many claim to have talked with him or just heard his voice.

P-O-R said:
and there is no hint whatso ever there is a god, just faith in that there is
There may not be proofs, such as something I can pull out of my pocket to prove that there is a God, but there certainly are many reasons to believe why it is very plausible and reasonable to believe in God's existence. Faith and reason work together - it is both/and, not either/or.

P-O-R said:
just a point of view
Yes, it is and you are certainly entitled to it. :D Just remain open-minded.
 
From Summa Theologica by St. Thomas Aqunias:

Whether God exists?
Objection 1. It seems that God does not exist; because if one of two contraries be infinite, the other would be altogether destroyed. But the word "God" means that He is infinite goodness. If, therefore, God existed, there would be no evil discoverable; but there is evil in the world. Therefore God does not exist.

Objection 2. Further, it is superfluous to suppose that what can be accounted for by a few principles has been produced by many. But it seems that everything we see in the world can be accounted for by other principles, supposing God did not exist. For all natural things can be reduced to one principle which is nature; and all voluntary things can be reduced to one principle which is human reason, or will. Therefore there is no need to suppose God's existence.

On the contrary, It is said in the person of God: "I am Who am." (Exodus 3:14)

I answer that, The existence of God can be proved in five ways.

The first and more manifest way is the argument from motion. It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion. Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another, for nothing can be in motion except it is in potentiality to that towards which it is in motion; whereas a thing moves inasmuch as it is in act. For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality. But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality. Thus that which is actually hot, as fire, makes wood, which is potentially hot, to be actually hot, and thereby moves and changes it. Now it is not possible that the same thing should be at once in actuality and potentiality in the same respect, but only in different respects. For what is actually hot cannot simultaneously be potentially hot; but it is simultaneously potentially cold. It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved, i.e. that it should move itself. Therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another. If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.

The second way is from the nature of the efficient cause. In the world of sense we find there is an order of efficient causes. There is no case known (neither is it, indeed, possible) in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself; for so it would be prior to itself, which is impossible. Now in efficient causes it is not possible to go on to infinity, because in all efficient causes following in order, the first is the cause of the intermediate cause, and the intermediate is the cause of the ultimate cause, whether the intermediate cause be several, or only one. Now to take away the cause is to take away the effect. Therefore, if there be no first cause among efficient causes, there will be no ultimate, nor any intermediate cause. But if in efficient causes it is possible to go on to infinity, there will be no first efficient cause, neither will there be an ultimate effect, nor any intermediate efficient causes; all of which is plainly false. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.

The third way is taken from possibility and necessity, and runs thus. We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, since they are found to be generated, and to corrupt, and consequently, they are possible to be and not to be. But it is impossible for these always to exist, for that which is possible not to be at some time is not. Therefore, if everything is possible not to be, then at one time there could have been nothing in existence. Now if this were true, even now there would be nothing in existence, because that which does not exist only begins to exist by something already existing. Therefore, if at one time nothing was in existence, it would have been impossible for anything to have begun to exist; and thus even now nothing would be in existence--which is absurd. Therefore, not all beings are merely possible, but there must exist something the existence of which is necessary. But every necessary thing either has its necessity caused by another, or not. Now it is impossible to go on to infinity in necessary things which have their necessity caused by another, as has been already proved in regard to efficient causes. Therefore we cannot but postulate the existence of some being having of itself its own necessity, and not receiving it from another, but rather causing in others their necessity. This all men speak of as God.

The fourth way is taken from the gradation to be found in things. Among beings there are some more and some less good, true, noble and the like. But "more" and "less" are predicated of different things, according as they resemble in their different ways something which is the maximum, as a thing is said to be hotter according as it more nearly resembles that which is hottest; so that there is something which is truest, something best, something noblest and, consequently, something which is uttermost being; for those things that are greatest in truth are greatest in being, as it is written in Metaph. ii. Now the maximum in any genus is the cause of all in that genus; as fire, which is the maximum heat, is the cause of all hot things. Therefore there must also be something which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness, and every other perfection; and this we call God.

The fifth way is taken from the governance of the world. We see that things which lack intelligence, such as natural bodies, act for an end, and this is evident from their acting always, or nearly always, in the same way, so as to obtain the best result. Hence it is plain that not fortuitously, but designedly, do they achieve their end. Now whatever lacks intelligence cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence; as the arrow is shot to its mark by the archer. Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God.

Reply to Objection 1. As Augustine says (Enchiridion xi): "Since God is the highest good, He would not allow any evil to exist in His works, unless His omnipotence and goodness were such as to bring good even out of evil." This is part of the infinite goodness of God, that He should allow evil to exist, and out of it produce good.

Reply to Objection 2. Since nature works for a determinate end under the direction of a higher agent, whatever is done by nature must needs be traced back to God, as to its first cause. So also whatever is done voluntarily must also be traced back to some higher cause other than human reason or will, since these can change or fail; for all things that are changeable and capable of defect must be traced back to an immovable and self-necessary first principle, as was shown in the body of the Article.
 
No such thing as a good atheist, because there is no such thing as an atheist who has Jesus and His imputed righteousness.

Dave
 
so dave your saying that if you dont believe in Jesus you're bad, so i guess all those christians who kill, steal and rape, theyre better than an atheist, who doesnt follow the sheep (coz A LOT of the people that are christian, just do it coz theyre parents are, or the think, that maybe if all the world belives, must be true), but acts responsible, etc. ? That seems very stupid, but whatever, ill guess il jump back to christianity, damn i can do whatever i want, and then ask Jesus for forgiveness, and its all forgiven!

And to respond to St Aquinas, well most of the copy paste was about that the Universe, matter, motion, MUST have been started by an intelligent being; God. But i have to ask, what put God in motion? Coz if this rule applies to all the universe, why cant it apply to all?
 
P-O-R said:
But i have to ask, what put God in motion? Coz if this rule applies to all the universe, why cant it apply to all?
It can't apply to God; that is the whole point of Auqinas' arguments.
 
Belief in Christ is salvation. If you don't believe in Christ or that he exists then you don't believe there is a possibility of salvation after death.

I cannot answer your specific question for there are still things I don't know about God's plans yet. All things are possible with God and I am limited by my corruptible knowledge. :wink:
 
Free said:
P-O-R said:
But i have to ask, what put God in motion? Coz if this rule applies to all the universe, why cant it apply to all?
It can't apply to God; that is the whole point of Auqinas' arguments.

so all me motion in the universe has to be started by god, but god's motion cant be started? :o
 
No, that is the whole point. Read Aquinas' points again. Something has to start the motion, but this something cannot, logically speaking, be in motion itself. God is the starting point.
 
Free said:
No, that is the whole point. Read Aquinas' points again. Something has to start the motion, but this something cannot, logically speaking, be in motion itself. God is the starting point.

Its impossible to start something in motion if your not in motion your self, thats physically impossible. Look, place to plastic cubes on the table. Can one cube push the other without being in motion by something? No. So God must have been in motion b4 he started the motion in the universe. So something must have put god in motion, but that must have been in motion blah blah blah.
 
Back
Top