Have you accepted Jesus Christ as your Lord and Saviour?

[RFayette]

No. Jesus Christ likely never existed even as a human

http://www.tektonics.org/af/abemyth.php

[RFayette]

Absolutely - salvation is by grace through faith alone, and I have settled my account in heaven. 

[RFayette]

Absolutely - salvation is by grace through faith alone, and I have settled my account in heaven.  

This.

If one asks me "Are you a 'born again' Christian?", I'd respond, "There's no other kind of Christian than a born again Christian!".

So if someone rapes a child, and the child grows up and develops mental illness due to this rapist and then kills themselves without faith in say their late teens, but the child rapist develops faith or already had it, then the person who was raped as a child is in hell and the rapist is in heaven?

That's why I believe God is evil. I don't have any respect for his totalitarianism and desire for worship. If God exists, he must be evil.

In the scenario you described above, yes, if the rapist had true saving faith and repented of his sins, he absolutely would go to heaven.  "Anyone who calls upon the name of the Lord will be saved" as Romans 10:13 teaches.  And anyone who rejects the Gospel and refuses to believe is condemned already (John 3:18).   The problem is that on this side of eternity we don't understand the gravity of our sin.  
 
That being said, perhaps there is an opportunity after death for repentance, especially if someone didn't hear the Gospel articulated fully and correctly.  I think the scripture leaves the door open for the possibility.

Again, this is a tough issue, but you have to realize the Bible teaches that God's ways are higher than ours.

[RFayette]

Absolutely - salvation is by grace through faith alone, and I have settled my account in heaven.  

This.

If one asks me "Are you a 'born again' Christian?", I'd respond, "There's no other kind of Christian than a born again Christian!".

So if someone rapes a child, and the child grows up and develops mental illness due to this rapist and then kills themselves without faith in say their late teens, but the child rapist develops faith or already had it, then the person who was raped as a child is in hell and the rapist is in heaven?

That's why I believe God is evil. I don't have any respect for his totalitarianism and desire for worship. If God exists, he must be evil.

In the scenario you described above, yes, if the rapist had true saving faith and repented of his sins, he absolutely would go to heaven.  "Anyone who calls upon the name of the Lord will be saved" as Romans 10:13 teaches.  And anyone who rejects the Gospel and refuses to believe is condemned already (John 3:18).   The problem is that on this side of eternity we don't understand the gravity of our sin.  
 
That being said, perhaps there is an opportunity after death for repentance, especially if someone didn't hear the Gospel articulated fully and correctly.  I think the scripture leaves the door open for the possibility.

Again, this is a tough issue, but you have to realize the Bible teaches that God's ways are higher than ours.

While Hillgoose is being his usual self, he does make a valid point.

I wouldn't call that 'justice'; I could basically f-ck over everyone in henious ways and repent on my deathbed and get into heaven while the people I f-ck over who lose their faith as a result or cannot comprehend god because of the sheet psychological damage I've done go to hell.

I agree on the second point about the people you have ed over, which is why I can't philosophically wrap my mind around a "hell."  However, if your deathbed confession were sincere, as salvation through faith alone assumes, then it's not like you were "gaming the system" the whole time just to throw a hollow apology at God as you're about to die.

Much of the 'faith over works' view simply assumes people can accept god (or conversely, purposely reject god) based on some one size fits all assumptions about a persons faculties, psychological state, life experience or even without considering traits that define a worldview such as autism (there's a suggestion that some people on the autistic spectrum are less likely to understand the 'concept' of a saviour god). Which is incredibly back and white and dare I say it, naive.

Salvation through 'works', mitigates that somewhat; the litmus test is grounded in your attributes and faculties as a person which may be different from someone else.

I agree these are valid concerns, which is why Protestant theologians over the years have wrestled with the interplay between God's love and his justice in light of what he has revealed in scripture.  I do think there is a difference between what is "fair" and what is "just," and this is where part of the reconciliation lies - it would be just for us all to go to hell, hence why God is just when he sends people to hell.  However, I don't think the scripture says that God will give everyone an equal chance to be born again and believe - in this sense I don't think one can say God is "fair," and Paul seems to concede this in Romans 9.   Since grace means something we don't deserve, and some people receive it and others don't, and none of us deserve it, there is a sense in which this is "unfair" that some get it and others do not.  Yet it is still just [at least from God's perspective] and from the Christian perspective is God's mechanism by which he showcases all of his attributes perfectly, including not just love and mercy but also wrath, judgment, and glory.

[RFayette]

Absolutely - salvation is by grace through faith alone, and I have settled my account in heaven.  

This.

If one asks me "Are you a 'born again' Christian?", I'd respond, "There's no other kind of Christian than a born again Christian!".

So if someone rapes a child, and the child grows up and develops mental illness due to this rapist and then kills themselves without faith in say their late teens, but the child rapist develops faith or already had it, then the person who was raped as a child is in hell and the rapist is in heaven?

That's why I believe God is evil. I don't have any respect for his totalitarianism and desire for worship. If God exists, he must be evil.

In the scenario you described above, yes, if the rapist had true saving faith and repented of his sins, he absolutely would go to heaven.  "Anyone who calls upon the name of the Lord will be saved" as Romans 10:13 teaches.  And anyone who rejects the Gospel and refuses to believe is condemned already (John 3:18).   The problem is that on this side of eternity we don't understand the gravity of our sin.  
 
That being said, perhaps there is an opportunity after death for repentance, especially if someone didn't hear the Gospel articulated fully and correctly.  I think the scripture leaves the door open for the possibility.

Again, this is a tough issue, but you have to realize the Bible teaches that God's ways are higher than ours.

While Hillgoose is being his usual self, he does make a valid point.

I wouldn't call that 'justice'; I could basically f-ck over everyone in henious ways and repent on my deathbed and get into heaven while the people I f-ck over who lose their faith as a result or cannot comprehend god because of the sheet psychological damage I've done go to hell.

I agree on the second point about the people you have ed over, which is why I can't philosophically wrap my mind around a "hell."  However, if your deathbed confession were sincere, as salvation through faith alone assumes, then it's not like you were "gaming the system" the whole time just to throw a hollow apology at God as you're about to die.

Much of the 'faith over works' view simply assumes people can accept god (or conversely, purposely reject god) based on some one size fits all assumptions about a persons faculties, psychological state, life experience or even without considering traits that define a worldview such as autism (there's a suggestion that some people on the autistic spectrum are less likely to understand the 'concept' of a saviour god). Which is incredibly back and white and dare I say it, naive.

Salvation through 'works', mitigates that somewhat; the litmus test is grounded in your attributes and faculties as a person which may be different from someone else.

the doctors told me i was on autism spectrum and sometimes it makes me wonder if it affects my view of God. the only other person I've met who believed even remotely the same sort of things about God that I do was also on the autism spectrum.

maybe God likes eugenics as much as Hitler. They're probably great pals up there in heaven with all the other evil people.

While I acknowledge there is a correlation between autism spectrum disorders and atheism, I happen to be a Christian and am almost certainly "on the spectrum" or at least broader autistic phenotype (BAP), and there are plenty of others with similar personality traits who are believers.  In fact, my desire for a totalizing logical worldview which I could live consistently with - which encompasses a need for an origin of all things, an objective morality I am both subject to and can appeal to, etc. - is what drove me to return to Christianity after a long season of doubt and difficulty.  Point being, these traits are not destiny when it comes to worldview formation; this obviously doesn't fully resolve the difficult questions regarding the justice of God, but the picture does need nuance.

[RFayette]

Absolutely - salvation is by grace through faith alone, and I have settled my account in heaven.  

This.

If one asks me "Are you a 'born again' Christian?", I'd respond, "There's no other kind of Christian than a born again Christian!".

So if someone rapes a child, and the child grows up and develops mental illness due to this rapist and then kills themselves without faith in say their late teens, but the child rapist develops faith or already had it, then the person who was raped as a child is in hell and the rapist is in heaven?

That's why I believe God is evil. I don't have any respect for his totalitarianism and desire for worship. If God exists, he must be evil.

In the scenario you described above, yes, if the rapist had true saving faith and repented of his sins, he absolutely would go to heaven.  "Anyone who calls upon the name of the Lord will be saved" as Romans 10:13 teaches.  And anyone who rejects the Gospel and refuses to believe is condemned already (John 3:18).   The problem is that on this side of eternity we don't understand the gravity of our sin.  
 
That being said, perhaps there is an opportunity after death for repentance, especially if someone didn't hear the Gospel articulated fully and correctly.  I think the scripture leaves the door open for the possibility.

Again, this is a tough issue, but you have to realize the Bible teaches that God's ways are higher than ours.

While Hillgoose is being his usual self, he does make a valid point.

I wouldn't call that 'justice'; I could basically f-ck over everyone in henious ways and repent on my deathbed and get into heaven while the people I f-ck over who lose their faith as a result or cannot comprehend god because of the sheet psychological damage I've done go to hell.

I agree on the second point about the people you have ed over, which is why I can't philosophically wrap my mind around a "hell."  However, if your deathbed confession were sincere, as salvation through faith alone assumes, then it's not like you were "gaming the system" the whole time just to throw a hollow apology at God as you're about to die.

Much of the 'faith over works' view simply assumes people can accept god (or conversely, purposely reject god) based on some one size fits all assumptions about a persons faculties, psychological state, life experience or even without considering traits that define a worldview such as autism (there's a suggestion that some people on the autistic spectrum are less likely to understand the 'concept' of a saviour god). Which is incredibly back and white and dare I say it, naive.

Salvation through 'works', mitigates that somewhat; the litmus test is grounded in your attributes and faculties as a person which may be different from someone else.

I agree these are valid concerns, which is why Protestant theologians over the years have wrestled with the interplay between God's love and his justice in light of what he has revealed in scripture.  I do think there is a difference between what is "fair" and what is "just," and this is where part of the reconciliation lies - it would be just for us all to go to hell, hence why God is just when he sends people to hell.  However, I don't think the scripture says that God will give everyone an equal chance to be born again and believe - in this sense I don't think one can say God is "fair," and Paul seems to concede this in Romans 9.   Since grace means something we don't deserve, and some people receive it and others don't, and none of us deserve it, there is a sense in which this is "unfair" that some get it and others do not.  Yet it is still just [at least from God's perspective] and from the Christian perspective is God's mechanism by which he showcases all of his attributes perfectly, including not just love and mercy but also wrath, judgment, and glory.

Why is god, if it is conceded that he is not 'fair', just? Justice relies on fairness. Decisions taken without fairness are not just. They are arbitrary. They are not 'good.'

If things are ‘good’ or just, because god says that they are good then morals are arbitrary and subjective. Anything goes with god, which isn’t on a practical level, the case with us because we actually mitigate our responses based on everything from situation, community to simple empathy. In a sense, that position robs ‘good’ from it’s definition. ‘Good’ is simply what something powerful mandates. If god mandates it, then ‘good’ means nothing. Saying ‘god is good’ is simply saying he is god. It says nothing meaningful about his actions because god would be ‘good’ no matter what he does. Not only does it rob good of its goodness, it also robs god of its glory. Why should there be praise for god if he would be equally praised even if he did the complete opposite? If what is arbitrary replaces what is just or reasonable, then all justice is, if anything, is what is pleasing to god.

If he is omniscient he knows everything, forever. If a person ends up in hell, that knowledge is god's for all time, including the time before he created the universe.

If he is omnipotent then he's all powerful. No thing is beyond god. Any choice is his. All of creation is his will and his alone.

Knowing that this person would suffer for eternity, God still chose to make the universe in such a way that people are damned. So they say what about 'free will'. But you can't have a choice if the universe is specifically created in such a way that you are who you are and do what you do.

The result is either that god has no choice in his creation, that he can't create to his choice, or that he chooses to create in ways that lead to the endpoint.

If there were possibilities other than ending up damned, then it is god's specific choice that you don't get them.

A being that is not good is bad. Who is not just is unjust. Who is not fair is unfair. Beings that are bad, unjust and unfair will still consider that their standards are good, just and fair because, what is 'good' is arbitrary to whoever defines it.

Justice pertains to what we deserve.  God will inflict the just punishment on everyone, though the only difference is for that those who are forgiven, the punishment was imputed to someone else.  As far as justice not equating with fairness, I guess my point was that the execution of punishments is perfectly fair, but the mechanism by which mercy is administered, because it's not based on the attributes of a person but rather God's grace, is not in the sense that not everyone has an equal chance to be saved. 

[RFayette]

The punishment we deserve for our sin is equal and applied equally irrespective of person, so in this sense it is just, but not everyone is forgiven of those sins, so there is selectivity in that sense.   My point was that the fact that the penalty for sin is eternal punishment (in extent, not in duration IMO, though I could be wrong on this) and this penalty will apply to all who sin is what it means for God to be just and fair.  However, what you could argue is not fair is that some people are forgiven and others aren't.  That's what I mean.  God is perfectly just in the sense that he will faithfully execute vengeance on sinners and apply an equal, terrible punishment, but his decision to spare some from that fate and instead impute that sin onto someone else's account (Christ) is something we by definition cannot earn and in this sense you can call it "unfair" - on this side of eternity, but I see it as the way by which God is able to fully express all of his attributes in perfect tension and harmony, which according to scripture include wrath and jealousy as well as justice and mercy.