To The Faithful Of The World: I Have But One Simple Question No One Can Seem ToAnswer

This is what lead me away from faith. This one question no one can answer. Here we go:
You have two people. One is an amazing person. His whole life has been dedicated to helping people all over the world. Making everything in his path better. Of course he fucks up a couple of times in his life, as we all do, but all together hes someone to highly look up to. He has made incredible discovers in the field of medicence and science that brings hope and life to thousands, but due to his upbringing and personal expierences does not believe in God or accept Jesus blah blah. Now he burns in hell along side Ghandi?
The other is a rutheless heartless rapiest and murderer. A rascist. A sexist. With not a bit of love in his heart. Untill he gets caught of course. He visits the prison church from time to time and finally becomes redeamed. He dies in prison and now spends the rest of eternity being rewarded for this one action. He never does anything else to attempt to help his fellow man. He goes to heavan? I dont want to spend eternity with homophobes, murderes and even possibly Hitler. (Who was an acclaimed Catholic)
So my question is simple. Explain how this BS makes any sence AT ALL. Ive already heard the whole "we all fall short to the glory of god" shit so dont spue that nonsence. Anyone have a solid logicaly answer? Other agnostic/athiests feel free to add on.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I think you're making the mistake of claiming to know the outcomes of two people's lives.
Let me preface by saying that I am not a religious person. But I have read most of the bible, and studied it with Catholics, Lutherans, Non-denominationals, and Jehovas witnesses.
What I gathered from studying it as intensely as I have, is that 1, there is no hell. At least not in the sense of a place one goes when one dies and is tortured for eternity. Hell, as a place of eternal torture, was an invention by clergy as a scare tactic. The world hell appears no where in the bible, unless it is a mistranslation. The words used in the bible for the afterlife of sinners are "Sheol", and "Tartarus" in the old testament, and "Gehenna", and lake of fire" in the new testament. "Gehenna" and "lake of fire" were synonymous. In the O.T., the word Sheol is refered to by many people who even the bible said were very righteous. Job says that he will go to sheol, other people say that they know they will end up in sheol. But nowhere in the O.T. does it suggest that sheol is a place of eternal damnation. What sheol means is "The common grave". Its the same as us saying "Someday I'll be six feet under". It refers only to the place underground that a persons body goes after death.
Tatrtarus is a place that god has created and reserved only for the angels who rebelled against him with satan and says they will go there after the end of days. It gives no specifics about what the nature of tartarus is, but it will only be populated by angels and demons, not humans.
In the new testament, the word Gehenna is used by Jesus and often in the book of revelations as "The lake of fire". As I said above, they were synonymous. Here is what Gehenna was.
Gehenna was the name of a large garbage dump outside of Jerusalem somewhere. Yup, they had landfills even back then. Gehenna was always kept burning. as far as I understand and remember, it was a sulfur reservoir or something like that. At any rate, the Jews of that time knew that there were certain things that were hazardous to just toss into the ditch or garbage can or whatever, so when they had something that was very dirty or hazardous to health, like the diseased corpse of a human or animal, fecal material, pagan idols (which were spiritually hazardous) etc, and they knew they had to utterly destroy these things, they would throw them into the "burning lake of fire", or the garbage dump named Gehenna. Throwing things into Gehenna signified utter destruction.
So, when Jesus says that someone will be thrown into the lake of fire, it seems to suggest that they will be utterly destroyed, wiped from existence, erased, whatever...

The book of revelations, and other places in the N.T. seem to suggest that there will be a great resurrection of all people at the end of days. It is at this time that all people will be judged. Those who remain loyal to God, will be rewarded with heaven, and those who do not accept gods authority will be separated from god. In other words, they will cease to exist. The book of revelations says that it is not our deeds in this life that will dictate what happens to us, but our deeds in this second life after the resurrection. This is what the second death is that I spoke of above. If you don't accept god in the second life, you will die again and stay dead for all time. But also, in this second life, God will remove the forces of evil from influencing the will and desire of men. so It will be much easier for all people to "Come to God" so to speak.

So, the two men in your question. According to the bible, would both be resurrected, both be given a chance to meet god, so to speak, and both be allowed into heaven if they accepted god, or they would both go back to being dead if they didn't accept god.

Hope that answers your question.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Catholicism, anyway, is founded on good works as much as faith and personal salvation. Supposedly we check bastards at the door. I can't speak for the other Christian faiths, but I think it would be hard to be a shit all your life and then get salvation at the last second as a kind of cynical play. I like to think God would see through that kind of a slick trick.

There's also a concept (forget exactly where I saw it) of "divine recognition" kicking around: that a person completely ignorant of all organized religion could look up at the sun, think "well, I bet something magical's behind that", and find himself or herself in possession of the golden ticket. This is my belief, anyway.

Scriptural basis for any of the above? Some, maybe; more for the first than the second, with beggars and cloaks and whatnot. The book can be spun as people like, with enough wordage.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It depends, some peole believe in http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/redemption in their earthly being as a possibility. People who commit crimes look towards a higher power as a means to rectify or excuse their crimes and most often it is comforting to them to do so. I am mainly agnostic so i am somewhat in the middle,

Hitler was non-religious and didnt particularly care for religion at all, which is an understatement. Not to mention that he was not mentally fit.

Probably not 100% satisfactory if coming from a living human.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

to the first guy;
God can see the benefits of his existence and reward him accordingly.
god can utilize you whether you believe in him or not.

To the second guy;
If he is sincere about his redemption (he would not do those things again and endeavor to atone for them).
Its not how bad you screw up, but how well you fix it.


this does not speak to 'Hell' being a tool to get ppl to line up with your religion.

it would be interesting to see hear the conversation between Hitler and God.
God: why did you do these things?
Hitler: i thought i was doing your work.
God: I didn't need your help.

 

Faith needn't be in Christianity. There are lots of religious possibilities out there.

Some Christians would doubtless say that, others wouldn't. Christian theologians argue loudly among themselves about the fate of good-hearted people from other religions (or no religion). I guess that pretty much all Christians want to hang on to the idea that Christ is necessary for salvation. To give that up is to give up Christianity. But many theologians would argue that the opportunity to 'accept', 'follow' or whatever Christ exists after death as well as before it. The idea is that God will eventually gather all the lost souls back to him in the fullness of time, through Christ. In effect, the idea seems to be that everyone will become a Christian, sooner or later.

Interestingly, the Hindus and Buddhists have similar ideas. They typically think that everyone will eventually be enlightened or reach whatever the apotheosis is supposed to be, though that might take endless lifetimes to achieve for some spiritually unevolved people.

The Indian religions would address that problem with their idea of karma. The criminal's evil acts would have built up a lot of karma that has to work itself out in future lives before salvation can ultimately be achieved. Salvation is assured, so long as the individual doesn't backslide, but it isn't going to be immediate and there's going to be karmic retribution to face before it's reached.

Christianity is in a much tougher position when it emphasizes salvation by faith alone and pays little attention to works. That effectively cleaves Christianity away from ethics and seems to turn it into a species of magic. The only thing that seems to matter is that somebody makes the proper invocation before they die.

I think that idea, popular among some (certainly not all) Protestants, is a rather crude form of Christianity, theologically, ethically and spiritually.

I guess that the idea of 'justification by faith alone' places a tremendous of weight on how the word 'faith' is understood. It's extremely problematic if it just means calling upon Jesus. That's just a magical invocation.

But faith is less problematic if it refers to a deep inner transformation associated with that call to Jesus. Presumably faith would change a person's fundamental motivations and they would hanceforth be motivated to do good as a result of their faith.

Unfortunately, we don't see a lot of that coming from many Christians, despite their smug assurance that they are saved. Many of them insist that all human beings are sinners, that all sinners who call on Jesus are saved, so that ethical behavior is unnecessary and seemingly irrelevant. That's just crude and simple foolishness in my opinion.

 

The point is moot, really, since myths and legends are invented by humans, for various reasons. Also, there could never be any shame or blame for not knowing of invisible imaginaries.

 

Acctualy this answered it very well. Thank you. Im going to countiune to do more research on what you said here.

 

Thanks to everyone who answered. Some really enlighting posts. And no trolls, whata pleasent surprise!

 

There is no hell- hell is self-made.

 

I sincerely hope so, for my own sake.

 

Cool, thank you. I could point you to some resources if you like. I'd have to do a little bit of research first through my old files, but I may be able to dredge some stuff up.

 

those who believe/think that a person can go to heaven based on a technicality rather than a person on whether how good they really are says more about the modus operandi of the one's purporting and believing that than what will be after death.

though it's very immoral, the way they reason and operate is justified as morality though it's actually just self-serving. it kind of makes sense in one way because life does make allowances for tricks winning over as well as dishonesty if they manipulate it well enough. so, though on one level we recognize what is moral, on another level there are people who will do whatever they want just because they can including twisting or perverting what morality is.

obviously these types of people are insincere but who is to stop them in the way they operate or think here or a possible afterlife? it doesn't seem there is so they continue that way.

as far as those who go around helping people personally, that can be dangerous to some extent. though there are people who will be appreciative, there are people who are exceedingly dangerous or scummy where they look upon those who help them as prey, similar to how a croc views those that feed them as food. this usually has to do with a tribal instinct. they don't appreciate general good-will from anyone and only from their own 'type' because their nature is about power and prejudice. it's just that they are not in a position to exercise it at a certain time. these are the same types of people who would enslave other people if they could get away with it. these types of people are usually very religious too and think similarly to your example. there is a very ugly side to nature.

even the bible has a scripture that indicates this type of people where they looked upon jesus as someone to use. there is also the issue with the pharisees. there are people like this today of course but what happens is because the majority tends to be more evil than good or more ignorant than enlightened, those who are truly the pharisees and users of the world tend to be the ones who define the religion. they also have made jesus a symbol of their own martyr or 'victim' that continually washes away their sins or excuses them. they ride this, run roughshod over it and take advantage of it. on top of that, they feel justified. you'll often hear this type brag about their holiness and how dare others judge them because all are sinners. it's a case of 'you're not better than me' but truly they are working on entitlement and excuses, not what one really earns. it's not about 'earning' at all, it's a 'gift' they say. see where this type of thinking and values is heading? if anyone can go to heaven based on a gift, then what is the use of morality? it's all bs and that is why some of the most corrupt and immoral people are attracted to the "forgiveness" of religion. they also know it doesn't matter if that is what they really are because they know it's about who has more power and influence as a group. if they outnumber the ones who are truly ethical, then they own the religion. as well, the bible has a mixture of what is written that is both good and both perverted or evil so they can spin or use the bible in the way that fits them. the problem is in believing that it's a perfect book with the perfect word of god. that makes their deception much easier because even the immoral in the bible can be justified under this belief.

 

Not quite. "Sheol" is indeed used, as is "the pit" [Hebrew: bor], and they're fairly much synonymous. "Tartarus" however is not in the OT. It's a Greek concept, never used in the Bible. In 2 Peter in the New Testament, there is an allusion to it (the verb tartaroo).

The word "Hell" as such is just a translation of Sheol and/or Gehenna to a Germanic word that means pretty much the same thing (underworld/realm of the dead). It's like calling Christ Messiah, or the Anointed One -- same thing, different language.

It's the spirit that goes to Sheol, not the body, and it remains aware of its loss of life. See, eg Isaiah 14, where the king of Babylon is sent there and the ghosts of past monarchs deride him. It's a realm of the dead, where everyone lives in gloom forever, like Greek Hades. (Sheol is in fact translated as Hades in the Septuagint.) In old Hebrew thought, everyone ended up there forever; in later Jewish and Christian religion, you're put there to wait for judgement.

The word is never used in the Bible. And where it's alluded to (2 Peter), it doesn't explicitly say only angels will go there. Merely that they will go there. And Jesus says quite explicitly that the devil and his demons will go to the same place as human sinners:

That's an interpretation not supported by the text itself. It clearly says "everlasting [Greek: aionion] fire". If it's just destroyed/erased, why must the fire burn forever? And in the Book of Revelation it says:

Or, as Revelation says,

That's the same lake of fire from whose torment the smoke rises up forever and ever, where the devil is tormented.

Where do you find support in the Bible for this? Revelation says no such thing.

It's a modern myth that the Bible doesn't support an eternal Hell. It does. Whether one likes that or not is of course a personal preference, but the language is pretty plain.

Just a couple of others:

 

According to traditional Christian logic, all men are irredeemably evil. (Go look up the doctrine of "Total Depravity" on Wikipedia if you doubt me.) Ergo, everyone deserves infinite punishment. No human effort can change this; you can be good or you can be evil according to human standards, but you're always evil at heart. It's enough to look with lust on a woman (Matthew 5:28) or call someone an idiot (v. 22) just once in your entire life to undo any and all good you might do otherwise in God's eyes. Evil cancels out good.

The only way to be saved is to believe in Jesus, because then God undeservedly forgives you. Some theologians even think God is unfair because he spares even the Christians, because they really deserve the same Hell as everyone else. See Job in the Old Testament, who someone else mentioned: He was as good as a human man can ever be, but he still (as a pious man) expected to go to Hell (Sheol) after death because Jesus wasn't around to save him yet back then.

You talked about "help[ing your] fellow man". But Christianity isn't about that. It's about receiving Jesus and the Holy Spirit. Any good you do afterwards is the product of you being saved, not its cause.

 

heartless..gotta give you credit dude..
for applying science to the bible,(IE what original words meant)
seems like you have done your homework.
kudos..

 

in short, the destination of the living entity after death is a reflection of what they desire and what they deserve .
If one pursues the path of mundane piety, they may take a more elevated birth.
If one pursues the path of mundane impiety, they may take a less elevated birth.

Generally it works out that we get a mixed result

If, however, one develops pure unalloyed love god, they get to leave behind the whole business of carving a future in this world, regardless of whether they were previously full of mundane piety or impiety.

IOW the notion of homophobes or whatever being in heaven is not going to happen, since a homophobe (or even a homosexual, for that matter) certainly has a few identity issues that require a higher/lower birth in this world ..... they fall short of pure unalloyed love for god regardless of mundane affiliations to organized religion

 

actually you don't know the theology. there is only one unforgivable sin according to christian theology and that is unbelief. everything else is forgivable allowing for the entrance to heaven. this aspect is a self-serving and conforming tactic more than anything else..

the use of 'forgiveness' obviously would attract those who can easily abuse it or see salvation as a gift and not even worth earning. still, there are people who value morality out of compassion and fairness, not just out of threat of punishment.

that is no different than one who takes a test and expects to pass simply by asking for forgiveness. but how do you get people in general to abide by laws if it's not out of self-iniative or desire? by threat of punishment or repercussions. if they don't see immediate repercussions, the resulting damnation of hell in the afterlife is another one. also, how do you keep them going instead of giving up when they falter? by offering forgivenss if it's sincere. the problem is not everyone is and many people use religion.

 

Hmmmm....

 

I don't see how that contradicts anything I said. The very point of Christianity, which renders it distinct from Judaism and Islam, is that no human agency can make a human being righteous; we are evil at heart. God/Christ can of course forgive the sinners, though they don't deserve such leniency. Then they are made righteous, and their sins are "forgotten". But it's all up to God's sovereign forgiveness; no good works or human effort will help. And some (eg Calvinists) go even further, declaring that God has already preordained everything, including who gets saved, and there's no free will at all.

Ecclesiastes is ... Well, let's just say there are plenty of things in that book that are pretty hard to reconcile with the rest of Biblical teaching, if one is inclined to try. (Historical critics tend to attribute these differences to the influence of Hellenistic philosophy, though that's still a matter under debate.) In the Prophets, things are quite different. Here's an oracle against the Pharaoh of Egypt:

And here's one against the king of Babylon:

To both prophets, the dead in Sheol seem to be consciously aware enough to greet a new arrival. And if we're to use the New Testament, we can quote Luke 16:

Here the thought is later and more developed, but it's the same basic picture. Granted, this "hell" is Hades, but that's basically just the Hebrew Sheol translated into Greek. For all intents and purposes they are the same: The underworld storehouse for the souls of the dead until the time of judgment (and distinct from Gehenna, which is post-Judgment Hell in the fire and brimstone sense). Where Paul quotes Hosea 13:14 in 1. Corinthians 15:55, he renders Sheol as Hades in the Greek (translated "grave" in both cases in the KJV), and the same is true in other instances where Old Testament books are quoted in the New (eg, Acts 2:27; cf Psalms 16:10).

Though I'll admit of another error, and offer a correction: It's actually the soul/personal life-entity (Hebrew: nephesh) that goes to Sheol in Old Testament theology, not the spirit (Hebrew: ruah), which comes from God; I phrased that bit a little absent-mindedly. Perhaps a small distinction, but important in a number of theological constructs.