What do Christians really think of Non-Believers?

[pmchugh]

it is total none-sense to claim Jesus is God. the bible does not support this idea in the slightest.

This is a major dispute within Christianity. Most Protestants, etc say Jesus is God. Jehovah's Witness (to name one example) and some other churches do not.

Depending on the version of the Bible you read, the most often cited passage is the one where Jesus is talking with the disciples and asks them who he is, the response is "God". However, its not something all Christians agree upon.[/quote]

I did not say this, zimmah did.

Aw thanks mac, you are so sweet.

[AAFitz]

personally i don't think an eternity of torture is fair, but i could be wrong.

I don't think anyone could be so horrible as to really believe that hell would be a just and right system of punishment.

really? i have no problem accepting the fact that people are this horrible.

and you have just unwittingly proven it.

[AAFitz]

What really matters is that religion is where we come from, where our story as a species started. It's what made us what we are today.

The big-bong theory.

[oss spy]

Religion is right depending on if you believe it or not. The wonderful thing about science is that it's true regardless.

[AAFitz]

Religion is right depending on if you believe it or not. The wonderful thing about science is that it's true regardless.

Science makes plenty of mistakes, and scientists believe a great number of things to be relatively true, that turn out not to be, and based on history, absolutely must believe things that are not true now...however, they are always searching to rectify that, and while sometimes incorrect, the sheer volume of proven fact, outweighs the occasional mistake infinitely.

The only thing that is ever true, is reality, and we simply cannot always know everything about said reality, but at least science makes a go at understanding it, where as religion simply stipulates it, and goes from there.

[Lindax]

Do you think that non-believers should be tortured forever?

Could somebody define "non-believer"?

Lx

[pmchugh]

Do you think that non-believers should be tortured forever?

Could somebody define "non-believer"?

Lx

Someone who does not think that Jesus was the son of God. So Deists/"Agonstics"/Atheists/Muslims/FSM followers etc. I hardly think it should matter though, if you replaced "non-believers" with "Hitler" I would hope that the answer would not change.

[Haggis_McMutton]

The only thing that is ever true, is reality

Nah, it actually turns out you're all a figment of my imagination.

[notyou2]

This is why atheists are more tolerant than christians even though christianity is allegedly about tolerance
http://www.canada.com/news/Atheists+laud+school+board+reversal+offensive+Christian+shirt/6568915/story.html

[Lindax]

The only thing that is ever true, is reality

Reality is relative....

Lx

[chang50]

This is why atheists are more tolerant than christians even though christianity is allegedly about tolerance
http://www.canada.com/news/Atheists+laud+school+board+reversal+offensive+Christian+shirt/6568915/story.html

Allegedly being the operative word

[macbone]

I get most of my theology from C.S Lewis and G.K. Chesterton, so admittedly, that's pretty limited. (It could be worse, though - I could base everything I believe on Creflo Dollar. (= )

In Lewis' The Great Divorce, he imagines a group of souls who take a holiday to heaven from hell, a seemingly limitless gray town filled with insubstantial houses and shops. The book begins with a queue in the gray town with people lined up for the bus (including the speaker, who seems to be Lewis himself), and the rest of the book is concerned with what happens to several of these ghosts.

About half-way through, the narrator comes across what looks like the Scottish writer George MacDonald (whose Phantastes had influenced Lewis a great deal). MacDonald becomes the narrator's guide through the rest of the book.

Here's a quote:

(Unnamed Narrator): 'But what of the poor Ghosts who never get into the omnibus at all?'

(George MacDonald): 'Everyone who wishes it does. Never fear. There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, "Thy will be done," and those to whom God says, in the end, "Thy will be done." All that are in Hell, choose it. Without that self-choice there could be no Hell. No soul that seriously and constantly desires joy will ever miss it. Those who seek find. To those who knock it is opened.'

And further in:

(Narrator): 'In your own books, Sir,' said I, 'you were a Universalist. You talked as if all men would be saved. And St. Paul, too.'

(MacDonald): 'Ye can know nothing of the end of all things, or nothing expressible in those terms. It may be, as the Lord said to the Lady Julian, that all will be well, and all will be well, and all manner of things will be well. But it's ill talking of such questions.'

MacDonald goes on to explain his comment in terms of Time and Freedom, explaining what he means by his statement (but it's about a page and a half, so if you're interested, you can check it out).

Many Christians probably won't accept The Great Divorce as being anything like reality after death, but the thing is, none of us really know what happens after we die. We might all just rot in the grave, and that's the end of us. And Lewis wasn't intending his book to be anything like what heaven would actually be like, just one idea. Still, it's a good book to read, if only to present one plausible idea about what life after death (if there is such a thing) would look like.

Sartre wrote, "L'enfer, c'est les autres," something like "Hell is other people." To this, Lewis adds the other view - "l'enfer, c'est nous-meme" - Hell is Ourselves.

[chang50]

I get most of my theology from C.S Lewis and G.K. Chesterton, so admittedly, that's pretty limited. (It could be worse, though - I could base everything I believe on Creflo Dollar. (= )

In Lewis' The Great Divorce, he imagines a group of souls who take a holiday to heaven from hell, a seemingly limitless gray town filled with insubstantial houses and shops. The book begins with a queue in the gray town with people lined up for the bus (including the speaker, who seems to be Lewis himself), and the rest of the book is concerned with what happens to several of these ghosts.

About half-way through, the narrator comes across what looks like the Scottish writer George MacDonald (whose Phantastes had influenced Lewis a great deal). MacDonald becomes the narrator's guide through the rest of the book.

Here's a quote:

(Unnamed Narrator): 'But what of the poor Ghosts who never get into the omnibus at all?'

(George MacDonald): 'Everyone who wishes it does. Never fear. There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, "Thy will be done," and those to whom God says, in the end, "Thy will be done." All that are in Hell, choose it. Without that self-choice there could be no Hell. No soul that seriously and constantly desires joy will ever miss it. Those who seek find. To those who knock it is opened.'

And further in:

(Narrator): 'In your own books, Sir,' said I, 'you were a Universalist. You talked as if all men would be saved. And St. Paul, too.'

(MacDonald): 'Ye can know nothing of the end of all things, or nothing expressible in those terms. It may be, as the Lord said to the Lady Julian, that all will be well, and all will be well, and all manner of things will be well. But it's ill talking of such questions.'

MacDonald goes on to explain his comment in terms of Time and Freedom, explaining what he means by his statement (but it's about a page and a half, so if you're interested, you can check it out).

Many Christians probably won't accept The Great Divorce as being anything like reality after death, but the thing is, none of us really know what happens after we die. We might all just rot in the grave, and that's the end of us. And Lewis wasn't intending his book to be anything like what heaven would actually be like, just one idea. Still, it's a good book to read, if only to present one plausible idea about what life after death (if there is such a thing) would look like.

Sartre wrote, "L'enfer, c'est les autres," something like "Hell is other people." To this, Lewis adds the other view - "l'enfer, c'est nous-meme" - Hell is Ourselves.

Did Lewis say anything about all those who have never heard of God?An estimated 105 billion people have lived since our species began.Surely that would be a third very large kind of people.

[daddy1gringo]

Did Lewis say anything about all those who have never heard of God?An estimated 105 billion people have lived since our species began.Surely that would be a third very large kind of people.

Interesting you should ask. I dealt with this subject back on page 6 of this same thread. The part about those who never heard is about 2/5 of the way down the post and begins with:

The next part I'm just transplanting from another thread.

OK, here is what God says in his Word about those who have not heard. Romans 2: 11-16:

11 For God does not show favoritism….

Lewis, being a great scholar was certainly aware of the Biblical passage on which I based what I said. He dealt with it in an extremely interesting part near the end of The Last Battle, the last book of The Chronicles of Narnia. I was thinking of mentioning it in the other post, but it was already very long. Looking for text to copy/paste just now I found this article on what Lewis thought about what you asked: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_7 ... n31874586/ The article mentions the part in Narnia that I was talking about and also mentions something from The Great Divorce


To sum it up, Aslan, the Lion who symbolizes Christ, tells this noble soldier, Emeth, from a foreign country where they worship Tash, a horrible thing that eats human flesh, which symbolizes Satan, that although he thought he was serving Tash, since Tash is vile he can only receive vile service, as Aslan can only receive noble, he was actually serving Aslan without knowing it. Conversely, people who think they are serving Aslan, but are doing vile things, are actually serving Tash. It’s an interesting concept, and I think there is a lot of truth to it. It kind of goes along with what I said in the other post.

[chang50]

Did Lewis say anything about all those who have never heard of God?An estimated 105 billion people have lived since our species began.Surely that would be a third very large kind of people.

Interesting you should ask. I dealt with this subject back on page 6 of this same thread. The part about those who never heard is about 2/5 of the way down the post and begins with:

The next part I'm just transplanting from another thread.

OK, here is what God says in his Word about those who have not heard. Romans 2: 11-16:

11 For God does not show favoritism….

Lewis, being a great scholar was certainly aware of the Biblical passage on which I based what I said. He dealt with it in an extremely interesting part near the end of The Last Battle, the last book of The Chronicles of Narnia. I was thinking of mentioning it in the other post, but it was already very long. Looking for text to copy/paste just now I found this article on what Lewis thought about what you asked: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_7 ... n31874586/ The article mentions the part in Narnia that I was talking about and also mentions something from The Great Divorce


To sum it up, Aslan, the Lion who symbolizes Christ, tells this noble soldier, Emeth, from a foreign country where they worship Tash, a horrible thing that eats human flesh, which symbolizes Satan, that although he thought he was serving Tash, since Tash is vile he can only receive vile service, as Aslan can only receive noble, he was actually serving Aslan without knowing it. Conversely, people who think they are serving Aslan, but are doing vile things, are actually serving Tash. It’s an interesting concept, and I think there is a lot of truth to it. It kind of goes along with what I said in the other post.

Thanx,I guess I missed that,would I be correct in assuming the humans who predate the whole concept of worship/religion would also be covered by this?
Just occurred to me if a major way you can go to hell is by knowingly deliberately rejecting God,and all who have never heard of him are ok on that front,then by spreading the word to them,some will end up in hell who otherwise wouldn't due to their ignorance.Have I understood that correctly?

[pmchugh]

His dark materials kicks narnia's ass. Just sayin'

[pimpdave]

[BigBallinStalin]

I get most of my theology from C.S Lewis and G.K. Chesterton, so admittedly, that's pretty limited. (It could be worse, though - I could base everything I believe on Creflo Dollar. (= )

In Lewis' The Great Divorce, he imagines a group of souls who take a holiday to heaven from hell, a seemingly limitless gray town filled with insubstantial houses and shops. The book begins with a queue in the gray town with people lined up for the bus (including the speaker, who seems to be Lewis himself), and the rest of the book is concerned with what happens to several of these ghosts.

About half-way through, the narrator comes across what looks like the Scottish writer George MacDonald (whose Phantastes had influenced Lewis a great deal). MacDonald becomes the narrator's guide through the rest of the book.

Here's a quote:

(Unnamed Narrator): 'But what of the poor Ghosts who never get into the omnibus at all?'

(George MacDonald): 'Everyone who wishes it does. Never fear. There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, "Thy will be done," and those to whom God says, in the end, "Thy will be done." All that are in Hell, choose it. Without that self-choice there could be no Hell. No soul that seriously and constantly desires joy will ever miss it. Those who seek find. To those who knock it is opened.'

And further in:

(Narrator): 'In your own books, Sir,' said I, 'you were a Universalist. You talked as if all men would be saved. And St. Paul, too.'

(MacDonald): 'Ye can know nothing of the end of all things, or nothing expressible in those terms. It may be, as the Lord said to the Lady Julian, that all will be well, and all will be well, and all manner of things will be well. But it's ill talking of such questions.'

MacDonald goes on to explain his comment in terms of Time and Freedom, explaining what he means by his statement (but it's about a page and a half, so if you're interested, you can check it out).

Many Christians probably won't accept The Great Divorce as being anything like reality after death, but the thing is, none of us really know what happens after we die. We might all just rot in the grave, and that's the end of us. And Lewis wasn't intending his book to be anything like what heaven would actually be like, just one idea. Still, it's a good book to read, if only to present one plausible idea about what life after death (if there is such a thing) would look like.

Sartre wrote, "L'enfer, c'est les autres," something like "Hell is other people." To this, Lewis adds the other view - "l'enfer, c'est nous-meme" - Hell is Ourselves.

What a deprecating view of humanity.

[daddy1gringo]

Thanx,I guess I missed that,would I be correct in assuming the humans who predate the whole concept of worship/religion would also be covered by this?

Taken from the perspective of those Christians who believe in theistic evolution, and therefore believe that there were "humans who predate the whole concept of worship/religion", yes, you wold be correct. The more fundamentalist view is that worshiping God was around since Adam, so at least the first generation anywhere who wasn't doing it had turned away. Ironically, from that point of view, the good news is even better. Even those who turned away have a chance. The Bible makes several references to Jesus between crucifixion and resurrection going to where such were, bringing word of what he had done, to free them. e.g.:

1st Peter 3:18-20 -- Christ ... was put to death in the body but made alive in the Spirit. 19 After being made alive, he went and made proclamation to the imprisoned spirits — 20 to those who were disobedient long ago...

and Ephesians 4:8-9 --Therefore it says,

“ When He ascended on high,
He led captive a host of captives,
And He gave gifts to men.”
9 (Now this expression, “He ascended,” what does it mean except that He also had descended into the lower parts of the earth?

Just occurred to me if a major way you can go to hell is by knowingly deliberately rejecting God,and all who have never heard of him are ok on that front,then by spreading the word to them,some will end up in hell who otherwise wouldn't due to their ignorance.Have I understood that correctly?

Good question, but no, I don't think you have understood correctly. I didn't say that "all who have never heard of him are ok on that front". I think you stopped reading too early. God judges the heart in either circumstance; he shows no partiality. As for whether it would be better not to know, I think I dealt with that issue in the page 6 post too, pretty specifically in the section that starts:

So if people can get forgiven of their sins and saved without ever hearing, why do we send missionaries to tell them? Excellent question. Had to stop and think about that one myself. Here’s my answer, adapted from something I posted on the Jesus Freaks forum.

Look at Hebrews 2:14-15:

14 Since the children have flesh and blood, he too shared in their humanity so that by his death he might break the power of him who holds the power of death—that is, the devil— 15 and free those who all their lives were held in slavery by their fear of death.

Remember in the Romans passage (v. 15) it talked about...

If you go back and keep reading a little farther, well, preferably all the way to the end, I think I answer you, and then some. Forgive me if you did read the whole thing and still feel that your point is not addressed.

Anyway, the point is that God is not a religion. He is a person, and one who we believe is both wise and good. He will judge justly in each case. That is why I love him and worship him.

[chang50]

Thanx,I guess I missed that,would I be correct in assuming the humans who predate the whole concept of worship/religion would also be covered by this?

Taken from the perspective of those Christians who believe in theistic evolution, and therefore believe that there were "humans who predate the whole concept of worship/religion", yes, you wold be correct. The more fundamentalist view is that worshiping God was around since Adam, so at least the first generation anywhere who wasn't doing it had turned away. Ironically, from that point of view, the good news is even better. Even those who turned away have a chance. The Bible makes several references to Jesus between crucifixion and resurrection going to where such were, bringing word of what he had done, to free them. e.g.:

1st Peter 3:18-20 -- Christ ... was put to death in the body but made alive in the Spirit. 19 After being made alive, he went and made proclamation to the imprisoned spirits — 20 to those who were disobedient long ago...

and Ephesians 4:8-9 --Therefore it says,

“ When He ascended on high,
He led captive a host of captives,
And He gave gifts to men.”
9 (Now this expression, “He ascended,” what does it mean except that He also had descended into the lower parts of the earth?

Just occurred to me if a major way you can go to hell is by knowingly deliberately rejecting God,and all who have never heard of him are ok on that front,then by spreading the word to them,some will end up in hell who otherwise wouldn't due to their ignorance.Have I understood that correctly?

Good question, but no, I don't think you have understood correctly. I didn't say that "all who have never heard of him are ok on that front". I think you stopped reading too early. God judges the heart in either circumstance; he shows no partiality. As for whether it would be better not to know, I think I dealt with that issue in the page 6 post too, pretty specifically in the section that starts:

So if people can get forgiven of their sins and saved without ever hearing, why do we send missionaries to tell them? Excellent question. Had to stop and think about that one myself. Here’s my answer, adapted from something I posted on the Jesus Freaks forum.

Look at Hebrews 2:14-15:

14 Since the children have flesh and blood, he too shared in their humanity so that by his death he might break the power of him who holds the power of death—that is, the devil— 15 and free those who all their lives were held in slavery by their fear of death.

Remember in the Romans passage (v. 15) it talked about...

If you go back and keep reading a little farther, well, preferably all the way to the end, I think I answer you, and then some. Forgive me if you did read the whole thing and still feel that your point is not addressed.

Anyway, the point is that God is not a religion. He is a person, and one who we believe is both wise and good. He will judge justly in each case. That is why I love him and worship him.

Thanx again,it's good to talk to a Christian who takes his obligation as stated in 1 Peter 3;15 seriously.I've read your earlier post more thoroughly and it's interesting,a cut above a lot of the crap posted by some theists.I guess in the end our different perspectives might be psychological at heart.Perhaps you want it to be true and I don't.

[PLAYER57832]

Many Christians probably won't accept The Great Divorce as being anything like reality after death, but the thing is, none of us really know what happens after we die. We might all just rot in the grave, and that's the end of us. And Lewis wasn't intending his book to be anything like what heaven would actually be like, just one idea. Still, it's a good book to read, if only to present one plausible idea about what life after death (if there is such a thing) would look like.

Sartre wrote, "L'enfer, c'est les autres," something like "Hell is other people." To this, Lewis adds the other view - "l'enfer, c'est nous-meme" - Hell is Ourselves.

It was never meant to be a truly literal description. It is instead a point of reference, for thought.

Many modern Christians accept removal from God, seperation from God as being Hell. And, also, the idea that people have to actively turn away from God. CS Lewis broaches a lot of ways that can happen. At the same time, though, these are not truly Lewis' specific or Lewis' created ideas. He was gifted in putting a lot of existing thought and commentary into a readable and yet still pertinent and poignant form.

He made us think without being boring.

[PLAYER57832]

God does not tell people have no fun. He says be aware of the consequences of your choices.

Some people take things to extreme, prohibiting everything from dancing to "laughing too much", etc. That is arrogant pride, not Godliness. They take those steps to try and be "better"than their neighbors.. much as the pharisees were "extra extra holy", taking God's laws and adding multitudes of complications so they would be the "most pure" or "most pious". In many ways, that type of extremism can cause more harm than simply not following God at all, becuase there is no pretense in the one who does not follow God and so the behavior is not seen as a reflection of God the way the behavior of supposed Godly followers is percieved to be by non-believers and other believers alike.

[pimpdave]

[Ray Rider]

Obviously it is only possible for that view of religion be true if based on the assumptions of an atheist who believes all religions are completely false and fabricated by mankind.
To the rest of us, it's just other comedian attempting to make a funny joke.

[Frigidus]

Obviously it is only possible for that view of religion be true if based on the assumptions of an atheist who believes all religions are completely false and fabricated by mankind.
To the rest of us, it's just other comedian attempting to make a funny joke.

Would I be wrong to assume that you agree with that view when it comes to every religion but the one you subscribe to?