So, according to the bible, I can do anything as long as I say sorry afterwards?

[MackinawTJ]

First off, I'm an atheist. I am also open-minded and find religion quite interesting and enjoy debating/discussing it.

This is something that I find a bit...unfair? Weird? I dunno.
Basically, the bible says you can do anything as long as you repent for it. So let's say there's Guy A and Guy B. Guy A/Guy B are in NO way a reflection of the typical atheist/christian. I am in NO way saying all atheists are good or all Christians are bad, I know that is not true and there are good and bad of both.

Guy A is an overall charitable, nice, helpful, generous person who tries his best to live a moral life, tries to help out the people around him when he can, would give you the shirt off his back, etc. Bottom line is that he's a good, peaceful person that makes positive contributions to society and he is an atheist or agnostic, a nonbeliever.
Now time to get to Guy B. Guy B is a willfully malicious, horrible person. He's a serial killer, rapist, and child molester. He never helps anyone out, he's overall a very twisted person and doesn't deserve a second chance because people have tried to help him but Guy B refuses to be helped. Guy B repents, says he is sorry, for all of the horrible things he did and all the innocent people whose lives he ruined when on the verge of death.
The bible says Guy A will not go to heaven, he will go to hell, and that Guy B will go to heaven.

Does this make ANY sense to you whatsoever? Why should Guy A go to hell when he clearly is a good person and doesn't deserve it, while Guy B is a horrible person and DOES deserve to? Please explain and discuss, I am open to any and all opinions. Thanks.

[SilentWalrus]

Wikipedia is your friend.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repent

Repentance is a change of thought and action to correct a wrong and gain forgiveness from the one wronged. In religious contexts it usually refers to confession to God, ceasing sin against Him, and resolving to live according to His law. It always includes an admission of guilt, and also includes at least one of: a solemn promise or resolve not to repeat the offense; an attempt to make restitution for the wrong, or in some way to reverse the harmful effects of the wrong where possible.

[EndUnknown]

yeah, it isn't just "im sorry" it is a complete change of heart, with a true desire to stop.

[MemphisMasenko]

Originally Posted by MackinawTJ

The bible says Guy A will not go to heaven, he will go to hell, and that Guy B will go to heaven.

Does this make ANY sense to you whatsoever? Why should Guy A go to hell when he clearly is a good person and doesn't deserve it, while Guy B is a horrible person and DOES deserve to? Please explain and discuss, I am open to any and all opinions. Thanks.

Well I believe that Guy A will just go anywhere he wants to go.
I will not assume he is going to hell.
Just like I will not assume anybody is going to hell because they don't belive in my religion.
Guy B, I believe will only go to heaven if he belives in the love that Jesus really has for him and shows it to him on earth by helping others and helping to improve himself. But only if.

[MackinawTJ]

Everyone who is saying Guy B must have a real change of heart and improve himself, I said in the scenario that he repented on his death bed. Does it still count, even though since he is about to die there is no way for him to help other people at this time, reverse the pain he's caused, or make many changes to himself? I think improving yourself takes time, not just a quick repent. So he still goes to heaven, or what?

And why does Guy A deserve to go to hell even though he lived a moral life and helped people when he was alive? Wouldn't it make sense to let a good person like that go to heaven? No one has really commented on the fate of Guy A yet except MemphisMasenko.

[Locke]

Well, the issue of timing is an age old question; Jesus himself addressed it. Allow me to direct you to the parable of the workers. In this parable, the owner of the fields goes out in the early hours of the day and picks out workers for his fields, agreeing to give them fair pay. He does the same to more workers in the middle of the day. And in the last hours, he hires yet more workers under the same agreement. When the end of the day comes, they are all payed a full day's wages. Those who worked from the beginning of the day are irked, claiming that they did far more work but received the pay of those who worked only a little. The master replies, saying that it is his money, and he will give it as he wishes. In the same way, God can give salvation to anyone He wants at any time, and it would be foolish to complain, because the gift is His and His alone to give. In fact, we only repent because the Holy Spirit convicts us of our sin; we don't do it of the goodness of our own hearts, but because God has called us. That answer your question?

[MackinawTJ]

Very good analogy Locke. I think it is unfair and doesn't make sense because I think people should get what they worked for. But I understand what you are saying: that's just the way it is. You are saying God can do whatever he wants and everyone should be thankful. Sorry but the concept of god doesn't seem fair, loving, or reasonable to me. Why, if god loves all his children, would he send some of them to burn in hell for all eternity? If he exists, why doesn't he prove it so that people who base their beliefs on logic wouldn't suffer this fate? Why did god give me the ability to question him, and why wouldn't he like that I am skeptical even though there is every reason to be so? Would god really want me to blindly follow every word of the bible?

[Locke]

Originally Posted by MackinawTJ

Very good analogy Locke. I think it is unfair and doesn't make sense because I think people should get what they worked for. But I understand what you are saying: that's just the way it is. You are saying God can do whatever he wants and everyone should be thankful. Sorry but the concept of god doesn't seem fair, loving, or reasonable to me. Why, if god loves all his children, would he send some of them to burn in hell for all eternity? If he exists, why doesn't he prove it so that people who base their beliefs on logic wouldn't suffer this fate? Why did god give me the ability to question him, and why wouldn't he like that I am skeptical even though there is every reason to be so? Would god really want me to blindly follow every word of the bible?

Well, this is a rather complex thing; in fact, most Christians don't really know the answer for this. This is probably going to be long and poorly explained, but I'll give it a shot.

Well, there's a reason why it doesn't seem reasonable, fair, or just to you: sin. Sin forever polluted and corrupted the human reason and conscience. It works well enough for most human affairs, but it is nothing compared to God's standard. It will remain that way until we get our new bodies in Heaven, bodies never corrupted by the power of sin.

He doesn't "send us to Hell," not in the least. Even though we can't get to Heaven in and of our own deeds, we are still damned for our knowledge, we are still held responsible for it. Now, some people have more knowledge than others about such things, so they are to be held accountable for that. However, everyone has at least "general revelation" (if you read this post first, I gave an explenation for it in my post in your other topic), which is enough knowledge to be held accountable for. So, someone who studies Christianity but is not a Christian himself will basically be screwed when Judgement Day comes. Now, this is a somewhat debatable topic in Christianity; there are those who hold that all punishment in Hell is the same. While I don't believe in the Seven Circles of Hell as described in Dante's Inferno, there is Biblical evidence that God will give out rewards and punishment according to deeds.

Now, it's important not to consider knoweldge the sole factor in salvation. Sin is the most important factor. Without that sin being erased, we stand no chance of ever being in God's presence. Even with out sin natures removed, we aren't perfect; that's why we get a new, perfect body in Heaven.

Well, God wants you to question, be skeptical, and use the brain He gave you; just because it doesn't work 100% doesn't mean it doesn't work. Sin has tainted us, but even with that, we are still in His image. However, it doesn't matter, in the long run, in the determination of salvation, how much we question Him. That is determined by grace alone. What God really wants is for us to follow Him with knoweldge. If he didn't care about our knowledge, He wouldn't have given it to us in the first place. He wanted something like Him, yet something that could be free to praise Him of it's own free will; puppets and blind followers simply don't do. We should consider the Bible our absolute #1 authority, but we are free to question it and debate it. We should be using what God gave us to its full extent. Blind faith is an abominable offense, because blind faith was not what we were created for. Both faith and knowledge are a key part of the Christian experience. It is only today's culture that has encouraged any such thing.

[BigMakk]

Originally Posted by MackinawTJ

Very good analogy Locke. I think it is unfair and doesn't make sense because I think people should get what they worked for. But I understand what you are saying: that's just the way it is. You are saying God can do whatever he wants and everyone should be thankful. Sorry but the concept of god doesn't seem fair, loving, or reasonable to me. Why, if god loves all his children, would he send some of them to burn in hell for all eternity? If he exists, why doesn't he prove it so that people who base their beliefs on logic wouldn't suffer this fate? Why did god give me the ability to question him, and why wouldn't he like that I am skeptical even though there is every reason to be so? Would god really want me to blindly follow every word of the bible?

Even though God is so perfect and loving, he himself, whether it was indirectly or directly, created sin, hell and the devil. He is the one who created this supposed "free will" that allows us to go to hell.

[Locke]

Sin has nothing to do with God. Lucifer first created sin by rebelling again God, and that was introduced into humanity by Adam and Eve's rebellion in the garden. And he didn't make the devil into the fallen angel as we know him, Lucifer did that quite fine himself. Hell is either a place without God or a place with too much God, so that was probably created by God, but only as a result of both Lucifer's and humanity's sin. And tell me this: would you prefer to be without choice as to the way you live your life and worship God alone? Free wil isn't some curse, so it should not be treated as such. Rather, it is a very powerful gift that needs to be used responsibly. And again, Hell is entirely the fault of humanity, not God. If we did not rebel against God in the garden, we would not have any part in the judgement of the fallen angels.

[MackinawTJ]

How can it really be considered free will, though? Okay, here's a scenario. There is a young boy, 5 years old, and his father says "Son, in 5 years time, I'll ask you if you love me. If you say you do not, I'll kill you by shoving you in an oven to burn to death. It will be long and painful. However if you do say you love me, then I will not kill you. I will ensure you live a happy, and pain-free as possible life. Your decision." Let's remember, this is a kid. Probably scared out of his mind, he'll of course say that he loves his dad, but only out of fear. Maybe he doesn't really love him, but he is scared about what will happen if he does not say he loves his dad. That's like god saying, "Repent or burn in hell." It's fear tactics...threatening someone, not really giving them much of a choice at all. Ruling by fear instead of love...

[Locke]

Well, if there was no judgement, there would be two consequences of that:

1) Left to their own devices, no one would want to follow God. Sin's just plain too much fun. There has to be some accountability.

2) God could not be a just God if he only rewarded. Reward goes hand in hand with punishment.

Now, your comment on fear interests me: we are to both love and fear God. We should fear God in the sense that we recognize His power and authority, and we are to love Him in that we are to praise and worship Him because of all he has done for us. Both are a part our walk with God.

[BigMakk]

Since he is omniscient, he knew that sin was going to be created, and he allowed it. I understand how the whole free will is important, but humans had just been created and they were new to life; so why allow 100% free will from the start?

[MackinawTJ]

Originally Posted by Epicurus (philosopher)

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

And I agree with BigMakk, he allowed sin to be created. Why? To "test our faith"? Like we're some sort of lab rats?

[Gow616]

Originally Posted by MackinawTJ

And I agree with BigMakk, he allowed sin to be created. Why? To "test our faith"? Like we're some sort of lab rats?

"Without evil, how could a human know what is good or evil?"

That philosophical thought is the one with the weakest ground to stand on because it assumes that humanity would know what is good without evil. Could humanity ever know what one side is without the other? Life and death, good and evil, et cetera.

The one train of philosophical thought that should be used is Sextus Empiricus.

Those who claim for themselves to judge the truth are bound to possess a criterion of truth. This criterion, then, either is without a judge's approval or has been approved. But if it is without approval, whence comes it that it is truthworthy? For no matter of dispute is to be trusted without judging. And, if it has been approved, that which approves it, in turn, either has been approved or has not been approved, and so on ad infinitum.

OR

(Paraphrase of his other key theory)

To establish a criterion one must know the theorem that establishes it but to to establish the theorems it must have an established criterion.

Also, I am curious as to where that quote from Epicurus comes from since he was born and had died before the advent of Christianity and was a Greek who probably followed the Greek pantheon of Gods. I think that is an Epicurean philosophical thought not Epicurus.