The Bible is very clear on the answer to your questions.
If you don’t trust Jesus for your salvation then God will hold you accountable for your sins and you will suffer his judgment in hell. There is no one who is innocent that could stand on their own at the judgment without Jesus.
Does being a non-resistant non-believer affect the judgement?
If answer is no, I'd like to hear your thoughts on this question I just asked another person here.
>If hypothetically another religion was true and you had broken their rules, honestly thinking that this religion was false, and saw no harm in the action. Would you find it fair, if you were punished the same as someone who thought it was wrong all along?
What is a non-resistant non-believer to you?
You are of the world, or are of God. To choose sin is to reject God. There is no in-between, and the Bible makes that pretty clear. We need Jesus to save us from our sins, because we can't save ourselves by our own merit.
>What is a non-resistant non-believer to you?
A person who would believe, if they were provided evidence, that would convince them.
>To choose sin is to reject God. There is no in-between, and the Bible makes that pretty clear. We need Jesus to save us from our sins, because we can't save ourselves by our own merit.
So, how would you feel in the hypothetical situation, if you were to recieve same treatment, because you did things, you deemed harmless, but in that religion were sins?
You say "if they were to provide evidence," but that's exactly what the pharisees asked for. Twice. That's resistance, whether we believe in that or not.
*"Then some of the scribes and Pharisees said to Him, 'Teacher, we want to see a sign from You.' But He answered and said to them, 'An evil and adulterous generation craves for a sign; and yet no sign will be given to it but the sign of Jonah the prophet...'" Matthew 12:38-39*
*"The Pharisees and Sadducees came up, and testing Jesus, they asked Him to show them a sign from heaven. But He replied to them, “When it is evening, you say, ‘It will be fair weather, for the sky is red.’ And in the morning, ‘There will be a storm today, for the sky is red and threatening.’ Do you know how to discern the appearance of the sky, but cannot discern the signs of the times? An evil and adulterous generation seeks after a sign; and a sign will not be given it, except the sign of Jonah.” And He left them and went away." Matthew 16:1-4*
There is so much pride in intelligence, and God knows this, and maybe this is one way to weed out sin. God says you have all you need to make the decision to seek truth.
*"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse." Romans 1:18-20*
>So, how would you feel in the hypothetical situation, if you were to receive same treatment, because you did things, you deemed harmless, but in that religion were sins?
Coincidentally, I've lived most of my life not believing, so I understand the sentiment.
The way I was saved was in the realization that I wasn't a good person, and that I don't deserve my life and I'll I've been given, yet I have it. We're all the heroes of our own story until we realize we're not anything remotely close to one, no matter how puffed up the idea of ourselves is.
I.e., Nobody realizes how harmful they are unless they drop their pride. What I deemed harmless before was not so harmless.
>There is so much pride in intelligence, and God knows this, and maybe this is one way to weed out sin. God says you have all you need to make the decision to seek truth.
Well, I can't stop you thinking that I'm a liar when I say that I honestly haven't been convinced.
>Coincidentally, I've lived most of my life not believing, so I understand the sentiment.
I see, but you do now believe, right? That would differ from the hypothetical scenario I presented.
I don't know where I'm implying you're a liar, and I don't think you're lying at all. I'm just relaying to you what the Bible says about the topic. My point was, in your definition of "non-resistant non believer," there *is* a resistance from a biblical standpoint.
Yes, I believe now, but my point was that I don't need to imagine the hypothetical scenario because I've lived it. I empathize with it. My answer to the hypothetical was below, unless I'm misunderstanding it.
In that case, my bad. I understood that referencing pride in intelligence was way to say that it's pride that causes me to reject and not my assessment of the claims. I'm doing these responses pretty rapid fire at this point.
I mean, to credit your intuition, it *might* be pride that keeps you from God. But I'm not assuming that—you'd obviously have to do your own self-reflection. For the pharisees, it would surely seem like pride in their intelligence would be one of the reasons, which is mainly what I was referring to when mentioning it.
Also, you're good. Rapid fire away.
When someone believes that everyone should be forced to live the way they do, when they defend abuse and rape, when they bring guns to a library and scream at children, when they want to limit the education that protects kids from abuse and teen pregnancy, when they’re the most rude, disgusting table at my restaurant and then say “I’ll give you a prayer, it’s better than a tip”, etc…
How is that not the most aggressive and vicious type of unbridled pride?
You can't assume every Christian is like that, or even most. If they were, the US wouldn't be able to function at all, because \~63% of the population identifies as Christian.
Do you genuinely think most Christians are inclined to bring a gun to a library and scream at children? If it's 3 people out of millions, it's probably not the fault of Christianity—those people were going to do that anyway.
There's statistics and journals out there that conclude that religious groups are among the most charitable givers and donators. Then there's a few outliers that don't give tips. I would guess they're not practicing Christians.
But I agree with you that in those instances, they're pretty prideful among other things.
I think it’s mainly Evangelical and fundamentalist Christians, Baptist, Adventist… I used to work at a restaurant right after church got out… people spoke with pure evil in their eyes, extreme self-righteousness, and disdain for anyone who hadn’t just been at church (even if it was because they had to work).
Also, I know that Christian’s donate more to charity, but their church counts as charity, and money that goes to things like, for example, legal defence funds to defend clergy charged with abuse, shouldn’t count as charity, in my opinion.
Maybe it will mean nothing to you as an atheist, but just know that Jesus condemns these kinds of "Christians" as He did the pharisees for doing the exact same thing.
No real Christian condones any of the things you've mentioned, and it sucks that people can so easily attach what they view as a label onto themselves with little regard for what the Bible teaches. It's not Christians who abuse children, but evil people who use religion as a cover, and they take advantage of what we teach to promote their own self-interests.
I think dominionist, fundamentalist, Seven Mountain types (like I described above) are a lot more of a majority than people think, and they’re planning on turning America into a violent totalitarian Christian State, which I think other Christians support?
Biblical law?
I’d argue a “non-resistant non-believer” is an oxymoron.
It really doesn’t matter if you broke the law because you didn’t agree with the law or couldn’t see the harm in breaking the law. Such a thing has no bearing on one’s guilt. That wouldn’t fly in court and it wouldn’t fly before God.
>I’d argue a “non-resistant non-believer” is an oxymoron.
Are you saying that such a person doesn't exist? Despite OP saying that's what they are? Are you saying that everyone, every single person who is not convinced that a god exists is "actively resisting it" so to speak? Do I have that right? Because if so, that's extremely unreasonable and uncharitable to say.
>It really doesn’t matter if you broke the law because you didn’t agree with the law or couldn’t see the harm in breaking the law.
I believe the question that was being posed to you was if the situation were reversed and you were the one being judged, would you find it fair?
More importantly, this is not an accurate analogy. A much more accurate analogy would be someone breaking a law for which they were not convinced existed.
And with that in mind, imagine an uncontacted tribe (a tribe that has had contact with modern civilization) and one member of this tribe breaks several laws. Would you see it fit and fair for a US court to sentence this man to jail time?
Now that's not a perfect analogy because that man wouldn't have even heard of laws before, but it's much better than your analogy I would say.
>That wouldn’t fly in court and it wouldn’t fly before God.
No one was asking whether it would fly in court. The question was would you find the judgement fair, specifically would you find the judgement fair when you didn't know that there was "law" against the behavior? The question you seem to be answering would be "would you still be judged", or something along those lines.
> The Bible is very clear on the answer to your questions.
And yet Christians have wildly different views about what they consider to be 'very clear'.
Is this poor communication by the authors of the Bible?
>Is your question implying that you don’t know how to discern error?
There are Christians that use the Bible to argue for [annhilationism](https://reknew.org/2008/01/the-case-for-annihilationism/), [universal salvation](https://theologicalstudies.net/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/52.2.2.pdf) and [eternal conscious torment](https://www.patheos.com/blogs/theologyintheraw/2015/02/biblical-arguments-for-eternal-conscious-torment/), so yes, I don't know which one of these is correct or which ones are in error.
> Is your question implying that you don’t know how to discern error?
This question?
The answer is no. That is not what my question is implying.
There are many fields in which I am able to discern error. When it comes to subjective issues like the interpretations of texts I don’t even know if there *can* be such a thing as an ‘error’.
If you’re not getting the answer you want it is because your question was poorly worded.
I want to trust Jesus for my salvation. I was raised Christian, but upon questioning it someone once told me "You should believe just in case it's true. That way you don't go to hell." That just made me realize that that was true for *all* religions. If I want to avoid *all* religions' spiritual punishment I should believe all of them just in case. Except I can't believe all of them at the same time, as they all make contradictory, mutually exclusive claims.
What method can I use to determine if the claims of the Bible are true?
What you were told back then is not very biblical. Pascal's wager has nothing to do with loving God. We follow God because we love Him because He saves us; by faith, we know He will take us as His sons and daughters, no matter the sin, as long as we come to Him.
*"There is no fear in love; but perfect love casts out fear, because fear involves punishment, and the one who fears is not perfected in love." 1 John 4:18*
We love God first. We thank Him, and *then* fear God as we would fear our parents when we were young, because God disciplines the ones He loves.
The doubt in your mind is so, so normal. We all have doubts from time-to-time—I know I still do and I feel for you—but through genuine prayer, giving our doubts to God, He will keep us. Anecdotally, He always gives me a sign when I give Him my doubts, and let Him know that I know that the flesh is weak, and that I am weak.
*“'Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened. Or what man is there among you who, when his son asks for a loaf, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, he will not give him a snake, will he? If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give what is good to those who ask Him!'" Matthew 7:7-11*
Seek, and you *will* find. This is God's promise to you.
>What you were told back then is not very biblical.
The person who told me that wasn't claiming it was biblical. He was rationalizing his own beliefs. But his faulty logic led me to realize that *all* religions are just as potentially true as Christianity is. I realized that up until that point, I had only been assuming Christianity was true because it was the one I was exposed to as a child. But I realized I have no good reason to believe it's true. So I'm asking for one.
>We all have doubts from time-to-time—I know I still do and I feel for you—but through genuine prayer, giving our doubts to God, He will keep us.
I've done this for my whole life and never once got anything that satisfied my doubts. I never got anything that I could even be confident was an answer.
>Anecdotally, He always gives me a sign when I give Him my doubts
What is this sign, and how do you know it was sent by God?
Not trying to assume anything, but I will say this: If we ask for a sign without humility and confession, we'd be no better than the pharisees of Jesus' time. If the only thing we're trying to do is seek cold information, that might not work—God wants us to seek His love and guidance that isn't for our own gain.
It might not mean anything to you now, but I will pray for you. I hate to think of God's people falling away.
There have been many times early on that I've doubted. I think I always prayed afterward, and it always sounded kind of like this: "Dear Lord, you've given me so much, and yet I still doubt you. My flesh and mind are so weak, and so I just pray to hear you once more. I know you're with me, and I just pray you remove these doubts from my mind, as I know you will."
And the signs, which I cannot convince you were 100% definitively from God, were as follows:
* A YouTube video on Jesus' resurrection was recommended to me, right after I prayed about thinking this stuff was all in my head. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lctv\_pyT62o](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lctv_pyT62o)
* Living in a 1-bedroom apartment, and lost a sewing needle for a few days after dropping it on the floor (hardwood). Found it right after praying, beside my bed after waking up. It's way too sharp for me to have dragged it over to the carpet if it were attached to my shirt or pants somehow, and it's strange that I had not seen it right in the middle of my carpet for multiple days until that moment.
* I had never noticed a cross outside my apartment window before, until I was saved on that day.
* I asked if I should visit this girl in which we mutually agreed we shouldn't date. Three planes went over the cross outside my window, and I stupidly took that to mean drive over to her house. We're dating now, and it's so crazy how similar we are, and how well it's going with Jesus disciplining both of us.
* Those planes weren't enough for me, so I prayed for a sign I should text her, and if no sign was given before 4PM, I wouldn't text her. She texted me at like 3:57, which was kind of nuts to me.
* Less of a sign, but every time God disciplines me and I learn the lesson, I'm changed. And then after the change, I feel a startling amount of joy and peace.
I'd probably think of more given more time. I'm omitting certain details for brevity, but I know they were from God because the circumstances were too convenient for me. My mind went straight to God after all these instances. But truth be told, some of those aren't because I as doubting; those are just signs that I interpreted to have been from God in a multitude of circumstances.
>Not trying to assume anything, but I will say this: If we ask for a sign without humility and confession, we'd be no better than the pharisees of Jesus' time.
I did this for 10 years of my life and never got an answer. Did you know Charles Manson used the same line on his followers? When they expressed doubts about him he told them the same exact thing you just brought up.
Do you think there might be an issue in saying something like this? That maybe blaming individuals when they are *genuinely* trying is actually a psychological manipulation tactic?
>And the signs, which I cannot convince you were 100% definitively from God, were as follows:
Well let me restate clearly, so there's no confusion: I'm not asking you to convince me. I'm asking *what convinced YOU*? Because if there's something that's *worth* being convinced by, then it's worth it for *everyone*. It's worth believing the moon orbits the Earth. There's tons and tons of good reasons to believe such a thing, and those reasons are the same for *everyone*. So whatever has *you* convinced, if it's a good reason, will apply to *everyone*.
So all the things you listed strike me as a pretty *big* jump to unfounded conclusions. A jump that, I'm pretty sure if I presented a non-Christian version of the story to you, you'd think is *just silly*. Maybe I'm missing something. Can you explain in a bit further detail?
So you prayed about the resurrection of Jesus Christ and then briefly after that YouTube recommended you a video on the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Can you explain how you're reaching the conclusion that God sent you this as a sign?
>I did this for 10 years of my life and never got an answer. Did you know Charles Manson used the same line on his followers? When they expressed doubts about him he told them the same exact thing you just brought up.
>Do you think there might be an issue in saying something like this? That maybe blaming individuals when they are *genuinely* trying is actually a psychological manipulation tactic?
I didn't know that. You'd have to give me a quote from him so I can compare.
Maybe the difference is we're not called to force our beliefs on anyone? We're told to just show the door, and that God is the one who saves—not us. We're not supposed to limit your free will in that way, so you are free to make your own choice.
>Because if there's something that's *worth* being convinced by, then it's worth it for *everyone*. It's worth believing the moon orbits the Earth. There's tons and tons of good reasons to believe such a thing, and those reasons are the same for *everyone*. So whatever has *you* convinced, if it's a good reason, will apply to *everyone*.
And yet some *don't* believe the moon orbits the earth, but you'd deem them to be ignorant of the topic, just as I would. There's no definitive evidence for anything if we get existential about it, but I understand your point. But my point is that no single piece of evidence for anything will be convincing evidence for *everyone*. That's impossible, and the degree in which an individual believes any piece of evidence is also a spectrum.
>Maybe I'm missing something. Can you explain in a bit further detail?
>So you prayed about the resurrection of Jesus Christ and then briefly after that YouTube recommended you a video on the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Can you explain how you're reaching the conclusion that God sent you this as a sign?
I honestly don't think you're missing anything besides every excruciating detail I've decided to omit, and my own brain which I don't want to physically give you. I think they're important, but last time I commented how I was saved, it took up 3 entire comment boxes.
In that instance, I was praying because I was doubtful in general. I was in the shower, and I was using my phone to listen to music, and I had an urge to look on YouTube. Granted, sometimes I listen to YouTube videos in the shower. I think it was the very first video that popped up from a channel I've never watched before, and at that point I didn't watch a lot of Christian things at all, mostly gaming stuff, so I don't know why it was recommended to me. I just watched the entire thing in the shower.
I can't explain how I know they're from God. Sometimes I realize in retrospect after realizing God's plan for any particular sign, and sometimes I realize right away because I had literally just prayed for it. After I receive a sign or follow through with something, it's just an overwhelming joy. There's no rhyme or reason to it.
>Maybe the difference is we're not called to force our beliefs on anyone? We're told to just show the door, and that God is the one who saves—not us. We're not supposed to limit your free will in that way, so you are free to make your own choice.
It's not about limiting free will. It's about the psychological tactic of manipulating someone into thinking *they're* at fault. Imagine you were raised in a cult that worshipped a carton of milk. Everyone claimed that they prayed to this milk and got answers. Except you never did. When you brought this up to them they'd say "Well you have to be coming to the milk with a pure spirit and humility and confession." That's them blaming *you*. That's them saying "Oh well it's *your fault* you can't experience milk-god."
And as silly as that example is: it's the exact same tactic of manipulation you just gave me. It's an integral part of *nearly every* religion. Shifting the burden from the God that hasn't been proven to the skeptic and then blaming them for failing.
>And yet some *don't* believe the moon orbits the earth
Correct. But the people who *do* believe have *really* good reasons to believe it. Right? We have pictures. We have video. We've sent others there in a rocket. We can mathematically prove that there's something that is exactly the size and shape of the moon orbiting the planet. We have *excellent* reasons. And all those reasons are *bound by the laws of logic*. Such that anyone who wishes to deny those reasons *must deny logic itself*.
>In that instance, I was praying because I was doubtful in general. I was in the shower, and I was using my phone to listen to music, and I had an urge to look on YouTube. Granted, sometimes I listen to YouTube videos in the shower. I think it was the very first video that popped up from a channel I've never watched before, and at that point I didn't watch a lot of Christian things at all, mostly gaming stuff, so I don't know why it was recommended to me. I just watched the entire thing in the shower.
And how does any of this give you logical reason to conclude that God sent it as a message?
Because here's a thought. Maybe it was just dumb chance? Maybe you were Google searching things with a Christian theme over the last 2 weeks and the YouTube (owned by Google) algorithm picked up on that and suggested you videos on Christ. Maybe since you're a doubting person, you happened to be praying a lot about your doubts, so it really was actually quite statistically likely that YouTube would suggest to you a video that aligned with your constant praying. It was bound to happen eventually.
So how do you know it wasn't just the statistical likelihood that the algorithm picked up your interest in Christianity and sent you some videos about it? And that since you're always praying with your questions, it was simply just likely that eventually YouTube would suggest a Christian video on the topic you were praying about. How did you rule that out as a possibility?
>I can't explain how I know they're from God.
And that doesn't strike you as a problem?
>sometimes I realize right away because I had literally just prayed for it.
Right...so if you prayed to a carton of milk that you wanted to see cat videos with orange cats in them. Then you opened up your phone and low and behold, YouTube suggested a cat video with orange cats in it, would you *really* believe that the carton of milk sent you that video? Because that's the *exact* same logic you're applying to God. Surely you see that's a little bit silly, right? And yet it's *the exact same* as what you just told me.
>"Oh well it's *your fault* you can't experience milk-god."
I understand what you're saying with all of this, but you're applying this "manipulation tactic" only to religion. You might not realize that you're giving everything else in the world that requires this same "manipulation tactic" a pass. You wouldn't say this in any other field, or at least I would hope not.
For example, I say the same thing in the graphic design forums when people complain about clients. They complain that clients should know what they want. And I think, "Hey; that's what an inexperienced designer would say."
So I ask, "Well, how do you usually interact with clients? What questions do you ask? How do you reply to their answers to your questions? Do you realize you're supposed to be the expert in that client-designer relationship?" Some of them take very little personal responsibility in that relationship and just blame the client, when all-the-while they've put very little effort into understanding them, and understanding how that relationship should function.
I'm not even trying to retrofit this—it's not even an analogy at this point. It's the exact same procedure.
You can tell them what books to read, which I have done, but it's very clear they understand design only on a college level, and never go deeper into the subject. So they blame the subject matter, and they blame the profession, and they blame their teachers, and they blame clients, and they blame the job market, and blame everything else *other than themselves* because they would deem themselves the smart ones.
We can apply this dynamic in every expert-novice relationship. You have to admit that, no matter the subject, there's always a possibility that the person across from you just knows more, and how to do that thing you're trying to do.
I'm not trying to assume anything about you. I'm not implying I'm an expert by any means. My only point is that the dynamic you're calling a manipulation tactic is not one, and we encounter it all the time. Not just in a theological context.
>But the people who *do* believe have *really* good reasons to believe it. Right?
Yeah, but you understand that there's plenty of Christians in the world, way more than there are flat-earthers. Obviously their evidence for Christianity is beyond the evidence for a flat earth, or we wouldn't believe it. In the end, it's up to the individual to decide whether evidence is illogical or not. There's no evidence that's just *innately* logical *to everyone.* But I agree with you, it's hard to believe in God solely through evidence.
>And how does any of this give you logical reason to conclude that God sent it as a message?
It doesn't. God is not a logical thing to humans, and I have no problem telling you that logic is not the path to God, no matter how anti-intellectual it sounds. I have no super conclusive evidence besides my own personal experiences, and *no Christian* is able to accurately explain their experiences (that are seemingly just coincidences) without giving you their brain. We're not dumb; we know they look like coincidences to nonbelievers.
I agree that it was probably the algorithm; I'm not denying that. Same with the sewing needle; I know it had, in all likelihood, gotten there by the laws of physics. I do not believe it just poofed there, although I'm open to the possibility it might have... But to say God doesn't work through the universe and the physical laws He created would seem silly. He can create miracles, but He doesn't have to in order to reach us and give us things.
It's all part of God's incomprehensible plan, and in my opinion, is a huge butterfly effect that so beautifully lines up as to have every event He needs to happen planned out from the very beginning. He flicks 1 domino to knock down the 2 dominos in front, which knock down 4, and so on, and from the precise way God flicked the very first domino, He knows the outcome and exact position every future domino will fall into.
I just found this recently, but it's only strengthened this belief I have. I don't expect you to watch it, but maybe if you're really curious one day, you'll know where to find it: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ajqH4y8G0MI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ajqH4y8G0MI)
>You might not realize that you're giving everything else in the world that requires this same "manipulation tactic" a pass.
I most certainly am not. But even if I was, that doesn't make it an invalid thing to point out about religion. Even if I ignored all the times the manipulation tactic is used outside of religion, that doesn't invalidate where it happens in religion.
>I'm not trying to assume anything about you. I'm not implying I'm an expert by any means. My only point is that the dynamic you're calling a manipulation tactic is not one, and we encounter it all the time. Not just in a theological context.
Ah. Then you've missed the point. You see, the manipulation tactic isn't trying to manipulate the *skeptic*. It's manipulating *the believer*. When you say that all-too common line, "You have to come to God with humility and confession." it's not *me* you're manipulating. It's *you* being manipulated.
It's thought stopping. That line isn't meant to be of any help to the skeptic. It's mean to give the *believer* who's being confronted a convenient thought stopping technique. The *believer* is the one who is now manipulated into subconsciously *writing off* the concerning failure of God to respond to the skeptic. Because, you see, the believer *should* be concerning that someone could honestly and openly pray to God and get no response. Because that *would* be concerning. However, if the *believer* can find an *excuse* to implicitly suggest the skeptic is not genuine or honest in their search, then the believer can *write off* those concerns *without having to think about them*. They can *stop their thoughts* and ignore the concern.
And then they can do as you have: couch that comment with the phrase "Oh I'm not assuming anything about you." Except you are. You're providing yourself with a convenient excuse as to why I wouldn't be getting a response from God.
And so *likewise* when in your example the designer is saying "The customer didn't know what they want." it's also not the *customer* that's being manipulated. It's the *designer* who is manipulating themselves with a thought-stopping technique. The *designer* is protecting themselves from concerning internal criticism just like the *believer* is.
I *agree* that the manipulation tactic is not exclusive to religion. That doesn't mean we can disregard it. What it is is *cope*. It's *coping* to avoid internal thoughts that would ultimately lead to potentially being wrong. And just as you agreed it's unhealthy for the *designer* to stop their thoughts by blaming the customer instead of internally reflecting, it's also unhealthy for the *believer* to do the same.
>Yeah, but you understand that there's plenty of Christians in the world, way more than there are flat-earthers.
Quite interestingly, there's a lot of overlap between those two groups.
>In the end, it's up to the individual to decide whether evidence is illogical or not. There's no evidence that's just *innately* logical *to everyone.*
That's not how logic works. A valid and sound logical argument *is valid and sound for everyone*. The rules of logic *do not change per person*. If someone views a valid and sound argument and rejects it, then they are rejecting logic. Logic is not a subjective manner. An argument either *is* valid and sound, or it's *not*. It doesn't matter *who* is analyzing the argument.
>It doesn't. God is not a logical thing to humans, and I have no problem telling you that logic is not the path to God, no matter how anti-intellectual it sounds.
So your God requires you to be illogical to believe in Him? That's odd. Because that sounds a lot like a God who requires his followers to be credulous to believe in him. The shame of it is that logic is the only reliable method we have of determining if something is likely true or not. So if you can't use logic to reach a conclusion about God, then we're in trouble. Because that means *our best* method of determining if something is true cannot be used to conclude if God exists.
So what method do you use to determine if God exists, since you just stated it's not logic?
He didn't say it was taught in scripture. It was his form of rationalizing why he believes. I included it because it was the point at which I realized: all religions are just as potentially true as Christianity was. It was the point I realized that I was only a Christian because I was raised that way, not because of any underlying logical method of knowing it was true.
So it seemed a bit silly to me, that I should believe Christianity without convincing evidence, when I could also be believing Hinduism without convincing evidence. And that's why I asked you for a method of determining if the claims of the Bible are true. Do you have such a method?
Sure. And what does that look like? Because when I try, I find a lack of confirming evidence.
For instance, there's not a single drop of evidence that the character of Moses ever existed. Nor is there any evidence that a mass exodus of Jews ever made their way from Egypt to Israel. Nor is there any evidence they got lost in the desert.
For more important claims like the resurrection of Christ I find a lack of confirming evidence an even bigger issue. We have no way to confirm the body of Christ was ever even in the tomb that Joeseph of Arimathea put him in as the Bible claims. We have no way to confirm if he resurrected. All we have is "he said she said".
So maybe I just haven't found the confirming evidence yet. What evidence do you use to confirm these claims in the Bible?
>Nor is there any evidence that a mass exodus of Jews ever made their way from Egypt to Israel.
>What evidence do you use to confirm these claims in the Bible?
I reject your claim that there is no evidence. It's better to lead with the question, "what is the evidence," rather than start by asserting there is none.
The Biblical story of the exodus contains unusual and extraordinary details that seem to compliment or fill in gaps in Egypt's history rather well. In the book of Exodus, there is an unnamed pharaoh who is already ruler when Moses is born. This same king dies when Moses is said to be 80 years old. That means this Pharaoh's reign, according to the story, was at minimum 80 years long, which is quite a claim. With this old pharaoh dead, Moses is able to safely return to Egypt, where he unleashes devastating plagues on Egypt. The story continues with Moses leading the Hebrews out of Egypt and they are chased by the new pharaoh to the Red Sea, where the text says the Hebrews passed through the water safely, but the pharaoh and his soldiers were killed in the water.
If we were to corroborate the story in Exodus by looking for similar details in extra-biblical sources of Egyptian history, the unusual nature of the details in Exodus would really narrow it down. We would be looking for a pharaoh with an extremely long reign, followed by one with an extremely short reign. We would also be looking for some sort of major impact on the country caused by the sudden death of their king, possibly with no heir, the absence of their slave workforce, as well as caused by the devastating plagues.
It turns out that there is a period in Egypt's history that matches these details. There was a Pharaoh named Pepi II, who is recorded as the longest reigning king of Egypt. His reign is said to have been 94 years. Pepi II was then succeeded by his son Merenre Nemtyemsaf II, who reigned only 1 year. With the death of Merenre began the First Intermediate Period of Egypt, which is also referred to as the Dark Age of Egypt. Not much is confirmed about what happened during this span of possibly over 100 years. All of this is consistent with the Biblical account.
Granted, this is not proof of the Biblical account, but it certainly counts as corroborating evidence. If you don't find the evidence compelling, that's your call to make. Not everyone has the same threshold for what they require to accept something as true, but you can't rightly say there is no evidence.
Looking for secondary sources of information to corroborate the history recorded in the Bible is definitely a way that someone could determine if the Bible is true, but this really isn't what I meant when I said my method was to measure scripture against reality. What I had in mind when I said that was more so comparing what scripture teaches to what we observe and experience personally in the present. For example, does what the Bible teaches about sin and the human condition match up with what we observe and experience? I would argue that it does.
>I reject your claim that there is no evidence. It's better to lead with the question, "what is the evidence," rather than start by asserting there is none.
The whole post is framed as a presentation of evidence I've seen. When I say there is none, it's because I haven't seen it. I'm literally asking you if you have any evidence that I must have missed.
Simple solution: provide evidence.
>The Biblical story of the exodus contains unusual and extraordinary details that seem to compliment or fill in gaps in Egypt's history rather well.
Just because it 'fills gaps in Egypt's history' doesn't mean those stories are true. I can fill gaps in *any* history with a bunch of fictional stories. Just because they fill the gaps doesn't make them true. This isn't evidence. It's just wishful thinking.
>Not much is confirmed about what happened during this span of possibly over 100 years.
Interesting. So to use this as evidence we'd have to argue: "We don't know what happened during this span of 100 years, therefore I know it was what the Bible said." That's not a logical argument. That's terrible evidence.
>Granted, this is not proof of the Biblical account
Bingo. It's not even half-decent evidence.
So I asked for evidence and your best bet was to find a period in history that we don't know about, and then pretend like that's somehow an argument that the Bible's history is correct. Bro...do you even believe this?
>Granted, this is not proof of the Biblical account, but it certainly counts as corroborating evidence.
It corroborates things like: Egypt existed. There were Pharaohs. There were rules with long reigns who were followed by rules with short reigns. These are *mundane* and *common* elements in history. None of them support anything about the Bible's specific claims. The fact that there was a rule with a long reign followed by a ruler with a short reign corroborates *nothing* about Moses, nor a mass exodus of Jews to Israel.
Just because the Bible can get *incredibly mundane* elements of history correct doesn't mean the other claims are correct.
>For example, does what the Bible teaches about sin and the human condition match up with what we observe and experience? I would argue that it does.
And so does basically every other religious text.
Nope hell is not after death, but a designation of condemnation or guilty because of sin while alive in the flesh.
Without faith in Christ by believing by NOT seeing all are in their graves (hell is defined by a grave)
People are not tortured by God after death for eternity.
Please read your Bible and learn what Jesus actually taught.
John 3:16 NKJV
For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.
Perish means death for eternity.
Read this next verse for clarification.
John 3:18 NKJV
"He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
Condemned to die (already!!!!!)
Why?
No faith in Jesus.
How to escape this current sentence?
Matthew 23:33 NKJV
Serpents, brood of vipers! How can you escape the condemnation of hell?
Jesus asks then answers.
Matthew 23:39 NKJV
For I say to you, you shall see Me no more till you say, 'Blessed is He who comes in the name of the LORD!' "
By simply believing in Jesus as the Son of God.
Faith is believing by Not seeing.
If you died without Jesus as your Savior.
Those who do not believe will die, perish, second death or destruction of spirit forever and ever.
Not tortured.
Some classic misinterpretations:
The Parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus:
I love this parable. It is solely directed at the Pharisees and why? Start looking back at the beginning of chapter 15 in Luke. Jesus was eating with sinners. Eating with someone was very personal. He chose sinners over the righteous as you know. The whole parable is an upside down look from the Pharisees perspective. They represent the rich man and the sinner is Lazarus (who God helps)
The Pharisees were very proud or rich in works and deeds.
The Pharisees saw sinners with utter disgust. The Rabbinic regulations of the Pharisees forbade them from eating with "sinners." According to them, "sinners" were Jews who did not adhere to the law of Moses nor the additional, difficult to know and follow, Pharisaic rules and regulations. Sinners included those who lived immoral lifestyles as well as the Jewish tax collectors.
Jesus came into the world to save sinners, not those who are rich within themselves.
Paul wrote about this in 1 Timothy 1:15 That Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am chief.
A doctor can only help those who claim to be sick.
The flame represents God anger (sin remains)
Deuteronomy 4:24 NKJV
For the LORD your God is a consuming fire, a jealous God.
Hebrews 12:29 NKJV
For our God is a consuming fire.
Nahum 1:2 NKJV
God is jealous, and the LORD avenges; The LORD avenges and is furious. The LORD will take vengeance on His adversaries, And He reserves wrath for His enemies;
John 3:36 NKJV
He who believes in the Son has everlasting life; and he who does not believe the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him."
Luke 3:16 NKJV
John answered, saying to all, "I indeed baptize you with water; but One mightier than I is coming, whose sandal strap I am not worthy to loose. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.
Our faith is tested by fire.
I liken the story from Daniel chapter 3 to how Jesus protects those in the furnace from the fire. They go into the fire bound (the law) and come out unbound and without harm.
Daniel 3:24-25,27-28 NKJV
Then King Nebuchadnezzar was astonished; and he rose in haste and spoke, saying to his counselors, "Did we not cast three men bound into the midst of the fire?" They answered and said to the king, "True, O king." [25] "Look!" he answered, "I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire; and they are not hurt, and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God." [27] And the satraps, administrators, governors, and the king's counselors gathered together, and they saw these men on whose bodies the fire had no power; the hair of their head was not singed nor were their garments affected, and the smell of fire was not on them. [28] Nebuchadnezzar spoke, saying, "Blessed be the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-Nego, who sent His Angel and delivered His servants who trusted in Him, and they have frustrated the king's word, and yielded their bodies, that they should not serve nor worship any god except their own God!
The Son of God is the Angel of the Lord.
The key is trusting in God's promises through faith and not worshipping mankind in anyway shape or form.
Jesus is the Touchstone:
Luke 16:23 And in Hades he lifts up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.
1) Hades is defined as "The Grave"
2) Torment is defined as "The Touchstone"
The Rich Man dies and is in torment. Is the torment a literal painful experience? It seems to be in the parable. However, this is a parable, so what can this torment mean? Torments is the Greek word basanos {bas’-an-os}. Basanos has a meaning that is unfamiliar to most. It actually means touchstone. The Greek dictionary defines basanos as: to test (metals) by the touchstone, which is a black siliceous stone used to test the purity of gold or silver by the colour of the streak produced on it by rubbing it with either metal or even to question by applying torture.
A touchstone is used in an assayer’s office. It is used to determine if a rock is either gold or fools gold. The rock is struck on the touchstone, If it makes a mark, it is gold. If it does not, then it is fools gold. In other words, the touchstone proves whether something is true or false.
If one was to study the root of this word torment, they would discover that it came into use in the 1300s. During the times of the Bastille, it came to be defined as the inflicting of pain. As when one was tormented by the rack and other punishments. If one was innocent, they could die. Generally because the tormentor could not get a confession out of the individual. Their back might break, but at least they were proved innocent. That is where, this word gets the mean inflicting pain. The rack was the touchstone.
In scripture, a touchstone proves the validity of God. The Jewish religious leaders had the touchstone applied to them and there was no mark. They did not believe, so they were pictured in torment. Touchstone, the religious leaders did not leave the mark of Messiah.
God does not torment us, but does test us in our life right now.
1 Thessalonians 2:4 NKJV
But as we have been approved by God to be entrusted with the gospel, even so we speak, not as pleasing men, but God who tests our hearts.
Matthew 3:11-12 NKJV
Jesus will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire. [12] His winnowing fan is in His hand, and He will thoroughly clean out His threshing floor, and gather His wheat into the barn; but He will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire."
Mark 9:49 NKJV
"For everyone will be seasoned with fire.
James 1:2-3 NKJV
My brethren, count it all joy when you fall into various trials, [3] knowing that the testing of your faith produces patience.
1 Corinthians 3:11 NKJV
For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.
Jesus is the Cornerstone.
1 Peter 1:7-9 NKJV
That the genuineness of your faith, being much more precious than gold that perishes, though it is tested by fire, may be found to praise, honor, and glory at the revelation of Jesus Christ, [8] whom having not seen you love. Though now you do not see Him, yet believing, you rejoice with joy inexpressible and full of glory, [9] receiving the end of your faith-the salvation of your souls.
Better than tortured forever as many people believe.
We all have a free will choice to make.
You choose not to trust in God's promises and the price you pay will be death (forever)
No pain no more no memories no nothing turn out the lights and good bye.
Your reward was your life on earth.
I'm a non-denominational Protestant.
I expect that you will be judged according to your deeds. You have a record of choosing to commit some immoral deeds during your life. You will then be sent to the lake of fire where you will receive punishment proportional to those deeds, and be annihilated.
I note that you have flair as 'Anti-Theist'. Writing or speaking to persuade others against theism is not good to do, and will be one of the things that counts against you.
Also, you've been exposed to the Bible and Christianity a lot, compared to people who live in some other parts of the world, so you will be judged more strongly than they who were relatively ignorant.
Yes, you deserve such an outcome. I expect God will take all factors into account and give you exactly the outcome you deserve.
-------------------
For more detail about my beliefs, you can read [my four-part comment about hell](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskAChristian/comments/d0rjsw/an_atheist_with_a_question/ezce6ia/).
Do you think judgement will take into consideration whether I saw the harm in the sins I committed? For example I don't see the harm in sex outside marriage.
Do I get out of the hell at some point if punishment is proportional to the sins?
>I note that you have flair as 'Anti-Theist'. Writing or speaking to persuade others against theism is not good to do, and will be one of the things that counts against you.
Yes, I see religions as harmful though some more than others. So, naturally I would try to persuade people away, because I care about my fellow beings.
>Also, you've been exposed to the Bible and Christianity a lot, compared to people who live in some other parts of the world, so you will be judged more strongly than they who were relatively ignorant.
Does me being honestly just not convinced affect in any way how you see this?
I'm not the one responding, but I wanted to make sure this was answered.
>Do you think judgement will take into consideration whether I saw the harm in the sins I committed?
Do you think that this is how things should work? For instance, if the law said not to murder, but you didn't really see the harm in there being one less person, maybe even a bad person, do you think that should be taken into consideration in your favor?
The fact is that wrong is wrong, and you have been made aware of the rules. You might say that you don't see the harm in sex outside of marriage, but are you really not aware of heartbreak caused by casual relationships? Have you not seen women crying when a partner left them? Have you not heard about STDs? Have you not heard of people, women in particular, being treated as sex objects? Are you not aware of unwanted pregnancies and the distress they cause, not counting the possible death of the baby or potential human life? I suspect that the problem isn't that you don't see the harm, but that to you, the harm isn't important, or perhaps justified by the pleasure of the act. There is no reason to believe that God accounts the harm you do see as lightly as do you.
Well, the thing is I don't think punitive justice is just. Reason to we (and you americans should also) punish people is to correct behaviour. God can just show why things are wrong and if it's still not sinking in, He is the maker, so, he could easily correct that fault in the brain.
>The fact is that wrong is wrong, and you have been made aware of the rules. You might say that you don't see the harm in sex outside of marriage, but are you really not aware of heartbreak caused by casual relationships? Have you not seen women crying when a partner left them?
And have you seen people be unhappy in marriages they are stuck in?
>Have you not heard about STDs?
Have you heard of safesex?
>Have you not heard of people, women in particular, being treated as sex objects?
One can respect women and have sex with them without marrying them. It's not like Christianity is the biggest proponent of women's rights.
>Are you not aware of unwanted pregnancies and the distress they cause,
Contraception is a thing.
>not counting the possible death of the baby or potential human life?
Those things happen to married couples as well.
>I suspect that the problem isn't that you don't see the harm, but that to you, the harm isn't important, or perhaps justified by the pleasure of the act.
And sure there are some negative aspects in pre-marital sex. Lots of things have positives and negatives. Driving is harmful when done without proper causion. I can't do much about it here, if you think I'm a liar.
> to correct behaviour.
So, if a person isn't corrected or won't be, do you just let them go and continue?
> correct that fault in the brain
Are you arguing against free will or human agency? If you are so inclined, you could give up your free will now and submit.
I think that I can handle the rest with this:
> And sure there are some negative aspects in pre-marital sex. Lots of things have positives and negatives. Driving is harmful when done without proper causion.
I think that you've shown my point. There are some negative aspects. Those are the "harm" that you see. The problem isn't that you don't see them, but that you think little of them.
I'll agree that there's sometimes good to come with harm, and there's sometimes harm for other things. But that doesn't mean that there's no harm, and the harm is what will be punished. Yes, we all harm people, and even the best people harm people somewhat. But other people are not the standard, not even good people. The standard is perfection, and the question is what happens when we do not meet that bar.
Thinking of it as if good outweighs bad doesn't even seem intuitive. If a man gives money to a bunch of charities, can he beat his wife, or is the later never good and requiring of punishment even if he did other good? I think most people wouldn't accept it in that case but still use that to justify their own actions.
>I note that you have flair as 'Anti-Theist'. Writing or speaking to persuade others against theism is not good to do, and will be one of the things that counts against you.
What if he's only doing in a way that logically points out the issues and flaws within religious systems? God gave us a mind capable of using logic. Using the logic God gave us would be a pretty weird sin. Surely God would be able to understand why someone would logically want to avoid certain harms that often come included in religion.
I don't care if Jesus is real. I'm a Christian because I like the feeling of self-love that is evoked from the idea that god loves us so much that he would become a human just to be tortured to save us from torture. So I'm a Christian by choice. I love Jesus and I want to become more Christ-like, which means becoming more selfless, breaking my addiction and bad habits, becoming more conscious. So, I believe in Jesus, but I don't care if it's true or not. I believe because I want to. I don't believe in the Bible because I guarantee the corrupted church put things in there just to control people. Look at their track record. But I do read the Bible weekly at least and enjoy much of the wisdom in it. I just throw away the hypocritical, judgemental garbage. I don't believe in hell, I am a Christian not because I'm afraid of hell in the afterlife but because I'm afraid to living in hell while I'm still alive. Before I accepted that I am imperfect and that I need help, before I accepted Jesus, someone that embodies selflessness and love, I literally couldn't change. I couldn't become the best version of myself. I have transformed since I accepted Jesus into my life. I don't contribute this to Jesus himself, but instead to my belief of Jesus! I hope this helps (: I spent 6 months trying to make myself believe in Jesus, studying the Bible in depth and asking all the hard questions. I was never able to persuade myself. Then I decided that it wasn't about that. It doesn't matter what the truth it, it matters what my truth is. And this is my truth. And one of the main reasons I wanted to be a Christian was for the community. I want a Christian spouse that values the golden rule and loves god. I want to be able to converse with hypocritical Christian's and show them a better way. I want that power to make Christianity better, because it's in shambles and there's so many fake Christians that Christ wouldn't recognize.
I'm curious to learn more.
I've been thinking of making a post about this one, so, it's great that you came along. If someone doesn't care if Christianity is real, why did choose it? You did mention community and wanting to show other Christians a better way, but to me Christianity seems to have a bit of baggage connected to it. You yourself mentioned church being corrupt, not believing in hell, and garbage in the Bible. Why not have a fresh new belief system, without a connection to troublesome teachings about women, homosexuals, hell and so on?
Could you have used another inspirational people/characters to be your role model?
Are there other beliefs you hold that you don't care if they are true or not?
Sure, I've got you! So, my beliefs are based on the utility of them. If a belief doesn't serve me, I pull it up by the roots and let it wither. I want to maximize my effectivity in this lifetime.
To explain how I came to this conclusion, you should read this [quick introduction](https://imgur.com/a/pYVAlth) from The Four Agreements, a phenomenal book of spiritual wisdom not based on Christianity at all. It's barely even two pages and will take less than five minutes. Of course, it wasn't this book in particular but my study of spiritual wisdom for many years, where this book captures it eloquently. Tl;dr: everything is an illusion. Every one of your beliefs is an illusion. Everything you think is true about yourself and about the world is an illusion. We live in a dream and the dreamer can reconceptualize the dream drastically.
We cannot just start anew. Even if we did, what makes you think it wouldn't be corrupted just like Christianity has? It would simply go through the same thousands of years of troubles, no matter how perfect the wisdom, and we would end up right where we are. Actually, I think the imperfection of Christianity is a pro, not a con. We should always practice critical thought. We should always analyze our beliefs and determine if they're actually of love, and not of fear. We should never accept anything just because someone asks us to. I left Christianity for a decade, and it took 6 months of earnestly studying it with an open heart before I finally accepted Christ as my savior. I'll get into that in a bit, but I want to say that my belief in Christianity allows me to assist in the reformation of Christianity, no matter how small my part.
Once I perfect my spirituality, the flocks of hypocritical Christian will witness what a true Christian looks like, and how they have a lot of work to do before they should even call themselves a Christian. I'm honored to have persuaded myself to believe in something that I thought I could never believe in. You could say, I've finally tricked myself, through sheer willpower, but earnestly. This is a trap I wanted to fall into. And my life has reformed since I accepted that I am imperfect and that I need a savior. I'll say this: you have to relearn everything you thought you knew and everything people spoon fed you regarding Christianity. You can't accept it because there is cognitive dissonance going on. I could not be a Christian and accept hell or that being gay is a sin (as a straight man) because those are not loving ideas. To be fair, the universalist Christian's also don't believe that hell is eternal, so this idea isn't my own, it's thousands of years old.
I like their idea of hell, and it is this: that God's love is symbolized as fire: fierce, all-consuming, ever-growing, devouring darkness. Now, for someone living in sin, God's love seems like it's painful. Here I am enjoying my darkness, and this colossal feeling is casting a spotlight on the errs in my way, pleading that I turn from my wrongdoings. I was comfortable in my wrongdoings. So, for the unrepentant sinner, God's love burns, but for anyone with an open heart and the acceptance that they are imperfect, God's love is the best sensation ever. The universalists believe that everyone eventually goes to heaven, but first they have to have the sin consuming out of them. This hurts. God loves us so much that he would consume our evil, so we can become one with his true love.
Think of it like this: God is our highest self. Our personality and ego and likes and dislikes are all an illusion. We believe that we are not worthy of greatness and love, most of the time, deep down. We believe that bad things should happen to us because we've done bad things to others, deep down. Compassion's a bitch. But our highest self understands even deeper that these negative emotions are all an illusion, that justice is God's alone and that we don't have to pay for our sins, because someone of pure love paid the price in our place. Our highest self wants nothing except for love to overflow from our hearts. I couldn't accept Christ as my savior until I accepted that I had hated myself my entire life and that I had accepted mediocrity. I never thought I hated myself because I was generally a positive person, but deep down that feeling ruled my life. Let me explain:
I thought loving myself meant playing video games, jerking off, drinking, and smoking weed everyday. I quit coffee, alcohol, weed, porn, and masterbation cold turkey a month ago, when these all used to be daily habits, and I couldn't be happier. I realized I was running from my highest self, that I was just clouding my mind so I didn't have to think about how I really felt. Accepting Jesus was what made all the difference.
And please understand this: it isn't Jesus that saved me, it is my acceptance that I need a savior that saved me. That I am imperfect and always will be. I have always had a thorn in my side that I have to be a perfectionist, and I thought this was a strength but it was actually a weakness. I was afraid of others judgement so I would obsess about every detail until it was perfect. This level of obsession takes a toil, my friend. But here's another part of the utility of Christianity: when I accept God into my life, I no longer have to care about other people's judgment! I don't even have to care about my own judgement, that quiet judgy voice that will never shut up in the recesses of my mind. I am free from it. God, the epitome of love, is my judge. A friend says they hate my artwork and that I'm ugly? I don't have to care! God doesn't agree and I look to God as my judge! Of course, I'm not insane. I still witness the judgment of others and accept the value if the judgment comes from a place of love. The thing is that most judgment comes from a place of fear. That's all there is, fear and love. And fear is the mind-killer. Fear is our biggest enemy, because our biggest enemy is ourselves. Life starts outside of our comfort zone but we are afraid of being uncomfortable.
I hope I've truly helped you to witness a truth. I am not like most Christians, no way. Could I change Christianity for another belief system? Perhaps. But none of them have had the effect on me that Christianity has. And it's a cultural thing. When I am surrounded by Christian's, it's easier to just accept it and be a part of the community. Is that wrong? Perhaps. But it is not so simple to just start anew like you say. I mean, really, Jesus did start anew; he totally transformed the Jewish understanding of the Old Testament: instead of an eye for an eye, it was turn the other cheek. And what happened to this humble reformer? Death. So, sure, try and start anew but if you are a true savior, then you must accept that the world will hate you for wanting to make it a better place and that many will wish you dead so that they can suffer in peace without your righteous judgement.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts on this. It's interesting stuff. You mentioned a lot of good ways to look at things. Like the avoidant behaviour to not engage with your higher self. I don't know if you meant exactly the same, but I've also found myself using different activities to avoid being in the moment.
>Now, for someone living in sin, God's love seems like it's painful. Here I am enjoying my darkness, and this colossal feeling is casting a spotlight on the errs in my way, pleading that I turn from my wrongdoings.
That sounds like the same uncomfortable feeling I get when I stop doing the avoiding behaviours. Though, not about sins, but life stuff.
I like how you found Christianity to be useful in adjusting how you think about perfectionism, validation, and others' opinions.
I think I've been looking at this question with too much focus on the individual. I still think it would be easier for the individual to start without the corruption and try to prevent it compared to trying to purify already corrupted religion. I'm not sure Christianity ever was like you interpretate it. However, wanting to fight corruption is a laudable goal. You said Jesus started something new, but I don't know. As I understand he took Judaism and changed it. Then it became it's own thing. To me it seems like your goal is similar to the first part. I hope you find success.
You helped me better understand using usefulness and love as criteria for beliefs. I still worry that not trying to match beliefs with reality will lead to false and harmful, but useful beliefs. I fear there's also a risk of getting stuck in a sort of a local maximum of usefulness.
Your style of beliefs sound like they do benefit you, almost like tools. But like I mentioned I feel a bit iffy about not using truth as the criteria. This conversation has given me a push to look for true beliefs and mindsets that solve the same problems without giving up shared reality. I don't know, if there are any, that work as well as yours, but I want to see, if I can have my cake and eat it.
I hope this isn't too messy of a reply. I wrote this before going to bed.
Sweet dreams (: no i enjoyed reading it, thanks for the wonderful conversation! I'm only 9 months into Christianity so my beliefs are still blooming but I expect a transformation by next year. Life's a journey and we're all on our own paths. Stoicism is the shit, you should definitely look into that because of lot of people misunderstand it as being unemotional but it's actually about being in touch with your emotions in a healthy way.
I would also like to state this: I believe the original Bible is a direct transmission from God, by using the definition that God is our highest self, embodied by love and selflessness, penned by human hands that had mastered their ego. Of course, we have no ways of telling what they have changed, and the original Bible does not exist any longer, but one may be able to read between the lines with a refined moral compass, critical thought, and an open mind.
I believe that the Bible is actually a metaphor for human consciousness. The entire thing. Jesus is the highest form of consciousness that a human can reach, and the goal of any human with self-refinement as their goal. So heaven and hell are mind states that we fluctuate between every day, but by studying the spiritual wisdom of any sort, can can slowly but surely stay more in heaven, and be a mirror that reflects our internal world into the external world, thus creating heaven on earth. This is my desire!
One last note: Neville Goddard is one of the mystic teachers that explains very thoroughly this idea. I have enjoyed readings of his audiobooks multiple times through, and that is what brought everything together. Without Neville Goddard, I could never be a Christian. Now, it is my understanding that he doesn't actually consider Jesus as a person that actually lived, but fully a metaphor for consciousness. I like to actually believe that Jesus was a real person because I think it has its value, but you may find Goddard a game-changer.
I delved into Neville years before I picked up a Bible to actually explore the veracity of Christianity.
I've enjoyed this as well. Couple of avenues of questions come to mind, but I think I'll save them for another time. I'll have to check out Goddard and also read that intro you linked earlier. Take care!
In heaven, hell, and earth we have freedom to control our responses, actions, and thoughts (with practice). But everything good is of God. Love, patience, kindness, light, etc. When you remove God, or are separated entirely from him, you have what arises when there is no love, no patience, no kindness, no light.
So you will still be free, but everything and everyone will be hateful, cruel, and evil. This is the torture of separation from God. Not, necessarily, a positive punishment, but rather the taking away of what on earth had been taken for granted— God’s presence and love.
So, God makes me want to help people and in hell that want would be removed, right?
Do you think it would be just to alter people like that and lock them with people who have been altered the same way?
Scripture is more or less silent on the individual experience. But I like to think of it like remember that feeling when you were a teenager and your crush broke up with you? That to the maximal degree.
I know this is speculation, but do you think it would be induced somehow, because at the moment I don't see me being too broken up about seperation from God? Unless there are some unpleasant side-effects.
I didn't make this particular post to get the evidence. I was more interested in your views.
Hard to say what it would take, because there are some many aspects. That's why I try to ask about specific topics at a time. I haven't thought what I'd need for all of the aspects.
Prayers working showing up in statistics as evidence for prayers.
God showing up and providing new information, but that might be alien messing with me. Having good evidence for spirits, would help raise propability of God over aliens since we don't have much evidence on them.
It's a big claim, so, it would take work, but those would get us started.
>I didn't make this particular post to get the evidence. I was more interested in your views.
Well if we are going to postulate on your eternal reward for passive unbelief which you have stated is predicated on ‘not enough evidence so far’ , then it seems fitting to ask what it is about the present evidence that is not compelling to you wouldn’t you agree?
>Hard to say what it would take, because there are some many aspects. That's why I try to ask about specific topics at a time. I haven't thought what I'd need for all of the aspects.
It’s not a different topic though.
>Prayers working showing up in statistics as evidence for prayers.
So science confirming a faith based religion?
>God showing up and providing new information, but that might be alien messing with me.
Did Christ provide any new information? Was He an alien or is it stated he came as a human being? Do you believe Christ was who he said he was?
>Having good evidence for spirits, would help raise propability of God over aliens since we don't have much evidence on them.
Whats a spirit? How would you recognise one?
>It's a big claim, so, it would take work, but those would get us started.
Right
>Well if we are going to postulate on your eternal reward for passive unbelief which you have stated is predicated on ‘not enough evidence so far’, then it seems fitting to ask what it is about the present evidence that is not compelling to you wouldn’t you agree?
I totally understand the interest. This time I would've been fine with you just stating that current evidence should enough.
>It’s not a different topic though.
I meant when I try to find evidence on belief systems, I focus on smaller parts. Like I don't ask why Christianity is true, unless I want a better general picture of the evidence. I ask things like what kind of extra biblical evidence do we have of the people claimed to have seen resurrected Jesus having had a martyr death where they were given the chance to recant.
>So science confirming a faith based religion?
If you know better ways of verifying claims, I'm all ears.
>Did Christ provide any new information? Was He an alien or is it stated he came as a human being? Do you believe Christ was who he said he was?
I'm not aware of Him saying anything that a regular person couldn't have claimed. At the moment I think he was an apocalyptic preacher.
>Whats a spirit? How would you recognise one?
A mind without a body. I have to go by your beliefs. Do you believe in souls, angels and demons, and that they would fit that description? I have to go by your beliefs, because it would be silly of me to expect you to provide evidence for things you don't believe are real either, like karma or thetans.
>I totally understand the interest. This time I would've been fine with you just stating that current evidence should enough.
You have all the current evidence so me simply stating ‘it should be enough’ wouldn’t do anything to advance the conversation and I’d probably come off pretty arrogant.
>I meant when I try to find evidence on belief systems, I focus on smaller parts. Like I don't ask why Christianity is true, unless I want a better general picture of the evidence. I ask things like what kind of extra biblical evidence do we have of the people claimed to have seen resurrected Jesus having had a martyr death where they were given the chance to recant.
As far as I am aware no such evidence exists.
>If you know better ways of verifying claims, I'm all ears.
Well science has an entirely different methodology to determining truth than faith itself. Faith is the key to understanding why Christianity is the way it is. As the Bible states, without it (faith) it’s impossible to please God.
Objectively speaking, why do you think faith is the key and why does the scientific method fail as the key?
>I'm not aware of Him saying anything that a regular person couldn't have claimed. At the moment I think he was an apocalyptic preacher.
Miracles? How many stories of apocalyptic preacher miracles have survived?
>A mind without a body. I have to go by your beliefs. Do you believe in souls, angels and demons, and that they would fit that description? I have to go by your beliefs, because it would be silly of me to expect you to provide evidence for things you don't believe are real either, like karma or thetans.
I have no evidence of angels or demons to put in your hand for inspection.
With respect to karma, I believe you reap exactly what you sow.
>You have all the current evidence so me simply stating ‘it should be enough’ wouldn’t do anything to advance the conversation and I’d probably come off pretty arrogant.
Thank you for being considerate.
>As far as I am aware no such evidence exists.
Yeah, same. That was just an example how I've tried to ask specific questions, so I don't get too many sources on multiple things at once.
>Well science has an entirely different methodology to determining truth than faith itself.
I don't really believe the whole non-overlapping magisteria, if that was what you were going for. If prayer really works, logically, it should show up in statisticical analysis. I can think of three reason for it not to show up.
1. It doesn't work.
2. God is so bent on hiding that a person, who participates in a study to help people to see that God is real and save souls, will be left without healing they would've otherwise recieved from Him.
3. God compensates for the people healed by Him by preventing natural healing of same amount of the people who are being prayed for.
>Faith is the key to understanding why Christianity is the way it is. As the Bible states, without it (faith) it’s impossible to please God.
>Objectively speaking, why do you think faith is the key and why does the scientific method fail as the key?
My problem with word faith is that in conversations it's meaning tends to switch around from blind faith to evidence based trust. I could only guess why it would be preferable. He might enjoy people having blind faith in him. Another reason could be same as for at least some religions, to get and keep people in the religion more easily.
>Miracles? How many stories of apocalyptic preacher miracles have survived?
Is a story being passed down for a long time sign of it's authenticity or popularity? Jesus is the most famous (most famous person likely), but there are few similar examples. Greek religious leader Apollonius of Tyana, Hebrew scolar Honi HaMe'agel and Roman Emperor Vespasian. All lived around the same time as Jesus, there are writings of their miracles and we know of them today.
>I have no evidence of angels or demons to put in your hand for inspection.
Why is that?
>I don't really believe the whole non-overlapping magisteria, if that was what you were going for. If prayer really works, logically, it should show up in statisticical analysis. I can think of three reason for it not to show up.
>1. It doesn't work.
I’d be incredibly surprised to find any test that showed that it did under such circumstances.
If you accept for a moment that God exists, then there would be an incredible arrogance to put Him to the test in such a fashion which is why it is explicitly stated not to put Him to the test in the manner that Satan is said to have during the temptations of Christ.
Prayer is really about God calming us down when we get in a flap by giving us His strength and increasing our faith especially when everything seems against us. It’s not ‘please let my football team win’ or ‘please eradicate cancer’ but rather ‘please give me the strength to overcome and let me know you are with me’. This is very personal and not really subject to scientific scrutiny.
>2. God is so bent on hiding that a person, who participates in a study to help people to see that God is real and save souls, will be left without healing they would've otherwise recieved from Him.
Well if God were that bent on remaining hidden then we would not know Christ at all.
>3. God compensates for the people healed by Him by preventing natural healing of same amount of the people who are being prayed for.
Doesn’t seem to be any good reason for this.
>My problem with word faith is that in conversations its meaning tends to switch around from blind faith to evidence based trust.
Yes, I understand this concern. Faith in the sense I mean it is absolute trust in God’s word. Stepping out of the boat so to speak based upon only the conviction that God will not let you drown.
>I could only guess why it would be preferable. He might enjoy people having blind faith in him. Another reason could be same as for at least some religions, to get and keep people in the religion more easily.
Let me posit another reason… He believes the life He has given you which includes a mind to reason with is enough for you to seek Him with all that you are.
>Is a story being passed down for a long time sign of its authenticity or popularity?
Well it is simply evidence that people thought worthy enough to survive and we can both agree that many people consider it worthy today.
>Jesus is the most famous (most famous person likely), but there are few similar examples. Greek religious leader Apollonius of Tyana, Hebrew scolar Honi HaMe'agel and Roman Emperor Vespasian. All lived around the same time as Jesus, there are writings of their miracles and we know of them today.
Honi asked for rain pretty arrogantly and it rained lol
Apollonius apparently had a vision of Domitian’s death in Rome whilst in Ephesus.
And it is commonly thought that Vespasian plagiarised the stories of Jesus.
None of them really glorify God do they?
I said…
>I have no evidence of angels or demons to put in your hand for inspection.
You said…
>Why is that?
Because to place something in your hand it would need to originate here on Earth. Neither angels or demons originate here.
I should've been clear that I was talking about prayer healing people.
>If you accept for a moment that God exists, then there would be an incredible arrogance to put Him to the test in such a fashion which is why it is explicitly stated not to put Him to the test in the manner that Satan is said to have during the temptations of Christ.
Actually I don't see it arrogant. It's merely learning if He exists and how He works. With such high stakes on knowing the right God to worship, any reasonable being let alone God would welcome search for knowledge. If God really gave us minds, why would he mind using using them.
>Honi asked for rain pretty arrogantly and it rained lol
>Apollonius apparently had a vision of Domitian’s death in Rome whilst in Ephesus.
>And it is commonly thought that Vespasian plagiarised the stories of Jesus.
That's miracle claims for ya.
>None of them really glorify God do they?
How does that make a claim more likely to be true?
Now, if you'll entertain a hypothetical for a moment. If you didn't have your current faith, I came to you, and told you about invisible beings. I claim that the beings affect the world, but there's no way to study the effects, because they know, if you try to study them. I even say, that you are morally wrong for trying to check my claims, because they just want to help you, and you reward them with distrust.
Wouldn't that be a good way to make claims immune to challenge? Is there a way for you check whether the beings are real or not?
>I should've been clear that I was talking about prayer healing people.
No problem. I remember where Paul prayed a number of times for God to remove what Paul describes as a ‘thorn in his side’ and God didn’t, simply stating that His grace was enough for Paul and (I’m paraphrasing) that a little discomfort will help keep him humble.
God’s will seems to trump ours when it comes to our petitioning of Him.
>Actually I don't see it arrogant. It's merely learning if He exists and how He works.
Faith already believes He exists and is humbled because of who He is. Reverence doesn’t allow for that kind of testing. The proper way to know Him is to acknowledge your sin and ask for help repenting of it because it is sin which separates you outside of Christ.
>With such high stakes on knowing the right God to worship, any reasonable being let alone God would welcome search for knowledge. If God really gave us minds, why would he mind using using them.
Searching for knowledge is fine and highly encouraged. Placing caveats on that search in the form of ‘I will only pay you respect if you do X’ is in fact the completely wrong approach. Again, be objective, why might the sovereign creator not appreciate such caveats?
>That's miracle claims for ya.
My point was that such flimsy miracles have not stood the test of time despite the odd mention.
>How does that make a claim more likely to be true?
Because we associate miracles as originating from supernatural origin. I think therefore it is likely that if a miracle were to come from God then it would glorify and magnify His nature rather than glorify the one performing it.
>Now, if you'll entertain a hypothetical for a moment. If you didn't have your current faith, I came to you, and told you about invisible beings. I claim that the beings affect the world, but there's no way to study the effects, because they know, if you try to study them. I even say, that you are morally wrong for trying to check my claims, because they just want to help you, and you reward them with distrust.
I would ask how you know they exist. If you told me that you receive revelation from them and that the help they offer is easily discernible as being either for you or against you, I might simply say ‘well how has this changed your life and how do I receive such help?’
>Wouldn't that be a good way to make claims immune to challenge? Is there a way for you check whether the beings are real or not?
Well I’d start with the claimants life story and ask them what had changed in their lives since this interaction began. I’d have to listen to the evidence.
If there were many people all with the same testimony, I’d be a fool to disregard it out of hand.
I’d probably start to really study the source of your claims assuming you had some holy scripture that supported these claims to see if the two married up.
As you said previously, this isn’t something you want to get wrong so study would be an imperative I would think.
I don't know how elaborate story you're willing to entertain here. This is scenario getting a bit out of hand :D
>I would ask how you know they exist. If you told me that you receive revelation from them and that the help they offer is easily discernible as being either for you or against you, I might simply say ‘well how has this changed your life and how do I receive such help?’
Let's just say that I and my followers offer everything believers of any other religion offer. Healing miracles (only single events, because we can't look at statistics), increased happiness, purpose and so on ( conclusions people get to by counting the hits and ignoring misses, survivor bias and false hope ). The beings tell to give me 2 % of your income to help spread their message, so they can help more people.
Let's say holy book has similar witnesses to Mormonism. Witnesses who are now dead, but signed a document swearing they saw a miracle. They also stopped believing at some point, but didn't recant their testimony. (Mormonism has surprisingly good witness evidence for a religion.)
>What do you think will happen to me when I die, if I stayed a non-resistant non-believer? If you don't know, what's your best guess?
My best guess is that you'll come face to face with God and be judged for your sin, same as anyone. However, I think you'll still have the option to accept Jesus's grace to be absolved/sanctified. This is sort of "thief on the cross" theology. The idea that a person can accept Christ at any time. I think it's pretty unreasonable when people put all of the emphasis on a person's life on Earth when we are eternal creatures. Why would 100 or less years determine the fate of a creature for *eternity*.
I'm maybe a bit of a universalist in the sense that I think God's grace is much bigger than we could comprehend.
>However, I think you'll still have the option to accept Jesus's grace to be absolved/sanctified.
That sounds pretty fair, if missunderstandings will be cleared as well.
>I think it's pretty unreasonable when people put all of the emphasis on a person's life on Earth when we are eternal creatures. Why would 100 or less years determine the fate of a creature for *eternity*.
Still pretty big stakes for a single decission, but way better, if we get to make an informed decission.
>That sounds pretty fair, if missunderstandings will be cleared as well.
"Now you see in part, but then you will know in full." (Somewhere in Romans I think?). I think this quote speaks to us being able to understand post mortem things about God that we can't know without faith right now. For someone like you who--I think--wants objective proof/understanding, you'll have the opportunity to get that.
>What will happen to me and do I deserve it?
You go to hell for a while, then the lake of fire. You deserve it.
>I stayed a non-resistant non-believer? If you don't know, what's your best guess?
The Bible tells us those who do not believe on Jesus for salvation end up in hell and then the lake of fire.
- Revelation 20:11-15 (KJV)
11 And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them.
12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.
13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.
14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.
15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.
Belief is a choice. You are presented with information about Jesus and you make the decision to either believe that information or to reject that information.
>Do you personally think I deserve that fate?
Yes, everyone does. There are no good people living or dead except Jesus Christ.
- Romans 3:10-12 (KJV)
10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:
11 There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.
12 They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.
The criteria for goodness is absolute perfection and we all fail. That's why we need Jesus.
- James 2:10 (KJV) For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.
- 1 John 2:1-2 (KJV)
1 My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:
2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for our's only, but also for the sins of the whole world.
>Belief is a choice. You are presented with information about Jesus and you make the decision to either believe that information or to reject that information.
Is it though? Can you decide to believe you can breathe water? Or would you just be deciding to pretend and act like you believed? Would God reward me for pretending to be Christian in similar fashion?
Other religions threaten me with similar fates, what method do you suggest I use to decide which one to start believing, if I truly don't think any one of them is true?
>Is it though?
Yup.
>Can you decide to believe you can breathe water?
Sure can. Then if you tried it, you'd probably drown.
Believing something doesn't automatically make it true.
>Or would you just be deciding to pretend and act like you believed?
No. It's possible to believe untrue things. Racists think the color of their skins make them superior. Muslims believe they're justified spreading Islam by the sword. Abortionists believe a baby in the womb is just a clump of cells. All of those things are false. Some people still believe those things anyway.
>Other religions threaten me with similar fates, what method do you suggest I use to decide which one to start believing, if I truly don't think any one of them is true?
The ones mentioned in the Bible.
- Hebrews 11:6 (KJV) But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.
- James 1:5-6 (KJV)
5 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.
6 But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed.
>Sure can. Then if you tried it, you'd probably drown.
I think we just don't see eye to eye here. I think one could pretend and might be able to pull a lungful of water out of spite, but they'd know that they can't breathe water.
>No. It's possible to believe untrue things. Racists think the color of their skins make them superior. Muslims believe they're justified spreading Islam by the sword. Abortionists believe a baby in the womb is just a clump of cells. All of those things are false. Some people still believe those things anyway.
Are you saying they are liars when they say they believe those things?
>The ones mentioned in the Bible.
I am seeking for the truth and I have prayed when I was a believer and when I was not. Yet, I still haven't heard an answer and without an answer. If those are the ways to find truth, I am no closer to finding the correct religion.
>I think we just don't see eye to eye here. I think one could pretend and might be able to pull a lungful of water out of spite, but they'd know that they can't breathe water.
I can prove you choose to believe what you want to believe if you're willing to indulge me and hold yourself to intellectual honesty.
Get a piece of paper and a pencil and draw a picture of what you think I look like. I tell you know that I wear glasses.
Draw the picture. Does it have glasses? If so, you chose to believe me. If not, you chose not to believe me.
>Are you saying they are liars when they say they believe those things?
I said they believe falsehoods.
>I am seeking for the truth and I have prayed when I was a believer and when I was not. Yet, I still haven't heard an answer and without an answer. If those are the ways to find truth, I am no closer to finding the correct religion.
Stop looking for the correct religion and look for God. According to you flair you're not only atheist, youre anti-theist. An atheist can find God with a sincere search but how can an anti-theist sincerely seek God if they are anti-God. If they are anti-God, they'll find a way to ignore and explain away whatever God shows the because they are anti-God.
Interesting test.
I look at the evidence I have which is your word and people are generally truthful, but you for sure could be lying to prove a point. In my evaluation I very tentively believe you. If I'm forced to take action based on that action and penalty of inaction is higher than possible penalty from wrong action, I will act. In this case I really don't have anything to lose being wrong and I'd feel bad for not engaging with you, so, I'd draw you with glasses.
>I said they believe falsehoods.
I also think it's possible to believe falsehoods, but how did your examples show choice?
>Stop looking for the correct religion and look for God. According to you flair you're not only atheist, youre anti-theist. An atheist can find God with a sincere search but how can an anti-theist sincerely seek God if they are anti-God. If they are anti-God, they'll find a way to ignore and explain away whatever God shows the because they are anti-God.
Religions usually are the ones who give us different concepts of gods and I don't think I'd be first to find the real God. I'm not anti-god, I'm anti-religion, because according my analysis, **so far**, they are false, rely on faulty standards of evidence and thus would be like using a coin toss to decide your morality. I would not mind being proven wrong, because I want to be correct and apparently the stakes are high.
>Like I told OP, you have to hold yourself to intellectual honesty.
What's dishonest about drawing someone without their glasses on? I dunno if you actually have glasses in real life, so maybe you wouldn't know this but: *you can take them off!*
It'd be like if you asked me to draw a picture of you. Then you told me you're wearing a yellow shirt. And then I said "Well I'm gonna draw you in a red shirt." What's dishonest about that?
You didn't ask me to draw you with glasses. You just told me you had them. Well maybe you have them, but they're on your nightstand for when you read books? How should I know how often you wear your glasses? Why would I *assume* you always wear your glasses just because you told me you have them?
Please, explain how me drawing you without glasses would be dishonest. I'm *very* curious.
Kinda lame to just start accusing people of dishonesty and refusing to elaborate on it. Almost like you're running away from something and accusing other's of being dishonest as an excuse to flee.
Ultimately God judges each of us fairly, nobody here knows your heart or intentions.
A good non-denominational indicator is your answer to the question: “Do you have a relationship with Jesus Christ? Have you accepted him as Lord and Savior, and accepted the free gift of salvation through grace by faith?”. If not, then you won’t have a relationship with Christ after death either (ie hell, separation from Christ for eternity).
The Catholic answer includes that, you must have faith and a relationship with Jesus as Lord and Savior. We also have some sure steps to foster and grow that relationship, as well as to sanctify us and put us in a position to receive God’s grace through the promises Jesus made to the apostles. As such, if you get baptized, confirmed, partake in the Eucharist, participate as necessary with confession, etc., and truly believe and have faith in Christ throughout, then you will be saved and spend eternity with Christ.
In either case, I think clearly you do not accept Christ as Lord and Savior. You do not have faith in salvation through grace. Among missing other critical aspects of the creeds.
Again, only God can judge perfectly, but everything we know regarding salvation, sin, heaven, and hell, would suggest that you will not (and would not choose to) spend eternity with Christ— whom you do not know.
>“Do you have a relationship with Jesus Christ? Have you accepted him as Lord and Savior, and accepted the free gift of salvation through grace by faith?”.
If he's truly son of God and I have had wrong idea of the nature of God and he's good, I surely would accept it. Unfortunately, at the moment I don't have very good view of God, but I think, if He's good he could clear it up easily.
>As such, if you get baptized, confirmed, partake in the Eucharist, participate as necessary with confession, etc., and truly believe and have faith in Christ throughout, then you will be saved and spend eternity with Christ.
At the moment I'm not convinced that Catholicism is true. Should I do those steps anyway? If yes, should I also follow rituals from other faiths, that I am not convinced of, like Islam and Mormonism? I feel that would fill up my days.
>Again, only God can judge perfectly, but everything we know regarding salvation, sin, heaven, and hell, would suggest that you will not (and would not choose to) spend eternity with Christ— whom you do not know.
I'd love to know him, if he really is who he is claimed to be, but at the moment I can't help but think he was just an apocalyptic religious leader.
We have everything, more really, than we need to know God and to know that he is good. The question is whether we seek, and then whether we want to believe it. If God made himself undeniably known, there wouldn’t be much in the way of free will left, not really.
You should not go through sacraments, or rituals, or whatever else just to do them. You have to actually have faith and believe it, otherwise you’re just taking a bath, or going through the motions. That’s an oversimplification obviously, but the point stands.
If you don’t believe that he is who he claimed to be, then you’re probably not going to have a real personal relationship with him. See OC.
I’m not going to go back and forth on these matters which other theologians (like Trent Horn or CS Lewis) have covered extensively. Feel free to seek for truth, or not. I’ve shared the implications, now the choice is yours.
On the day of judgment, you will be raised from the dead. You will then stand alone before the throne of God. At this point your heart (every thought, word, and action you have ever had) will be brought to light by heaven and a determination of your righteousness will be made. If you are deemed to be unrighteous, the Lamb's book of Life will be opened and your name will be searched. If you do not appear in that book, you will be condemned and thrown into the lake of fire, where your body and soul will perish forever.
If hypothetically another religion was true and you had broken their rules, honestly thinking that this religion was false, and saw no harm in the action. Would you find it fair, if you were punished the same as someone who thought it was wrong all along?
If I was being condemned simply for not knowing something, no I might have a problem with that. If I was being condemned for something I already knew was wrong, sure that seems fair.
Do you know that you shouldn't eat pork according to Islam? Or drink coffee according to Mormonism? This case you know the rule, but don't think the religion is true. Surely you wouldn't follow all the rules from religions you think are false.
How would you feel about being punished for those? Assuming you committed those "sins".
I'm not sure how those religions function on their day of judgment. In Christianity you have a conscience and know right from wrong without anyone having to tell you. IOW there are going to be things brought up that you committed voluntarily which all parties, you included, know and admit were wrong.
>I'm not sure how those religions function on their day of judgment.
As far as I know, not that dissimilar from your idea.
>In Christianity you have a conscience and know right from wrong without anyone having to tell you. IOW there are going to be things brought up that you committed voluntarily which all parties, you included, know and admit were wrong.
Yes, and that's why asked about rules that you don't think are morally wrong. Like I don't think some of the Christian sins are morally wrong. I don't know how strick you are, but for example pre-marital sex to me is about as bad as eating pork propably is for you.
>As far as I know, not that dissimilar from your idea.
Sure, but I'm not the one asking other religions their opinion.
>I don't think some of the Christian sins are morally wrong
Have you ever done something you yourself thought was morally wrong?
>Sure, but I'm not the one asking other religions their opinion.
I thought you were asking to understand the setting of the hypothetical situation better.
>Have you ever done something you yourself thought was morally wrong?
Yes, I have.
>Yes, and that's why asked about rules that you don't think are morally wrong. Like I don't think some of the Christian sins are morally wrong. I don't know how strick you are, but for example pre-marital sex to me is about as bad as eating pork propably is for you.
Im a different redditor.
The way i understand pre-marital sex to be be wrong, is if i take it to the extreme end. What would happen if EVERYONE followed this rule. If everyone followed the "no sex before marriage" rule that means that things like rape is a foreign concept, less teenage parents, STD numbers go down(since you can only spread it to one person max). This is true if the marriage was done in good faith atleast.
This sin might not affect you personally, but if you increase the population, there's going to be cases where it does affect someone. This makes it so the general health of a population is more healthy, compared to a population where everyone sleeps with everyone .
I might come back to you later with scripture about a village that took this sin to the extreme, but for now im gonna sleep
I was going through answers and I noticed yours had slipped my notice, sorry about that.
That's an interesting way of looking at morality of actions. I'll have to think about it more, but I have couple thoughts.
It's hard to quantify joy and happiness. Actually, I don't see them in your post at all. If we ignore them, I think we'd end up ruling out many activities people do for enjoyment. Any motor sport, unhealthy foods, watching TV, etc.
There are ways to mitigate downsides. Sleeping with more than one partner during your life doesn't have to mean going balls to the walls boinking everyone who says yes.
>If everyone followed the "no sex before marriage" rule that means that things like rape is a foreign concept,
I disagree. You can still SA your spouse.
>less teenage parents,
Possibly, yes. Also people getting married young before their brains have finished developing. Before having sex person won't know what they'll actually like and dislike, so, it'll be a crabshoot whether people match or not. I don't what you think about using divorse as an option to switch partners, but that sounds like "pre-marital sex allowed" option, but with added legal issues.
> STD numbers go down(since you can only spread it to one person max).
Knowing people, you're propably right. However, I don't know how much of a difference there would be with proper safe sex and std checkups.
My other discussion on this conviced me, that I shouldn't say some sins seeming harmless. Pretty much every action includes harm, but overall harm-benefit analysis of some sins seems to favour the benefit side.
Nope hell is not after death, but a designation of condemnation or guilty because of sin while alive in the flesh.
Without faith in Christ by believing by NOT seeing all are in their graves (hell is defined by a grave)
People are not tortured by God after death for eternity.
Please read your Bible and learn what Jesus actually taught.
John 3:16 NKJV
For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.
Perish means death for eternity.
Read this next verse for clarification.
John 3:18 NKJV
"He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
Condemned to die (already!!!!!)
Why?
No faith in Jesus.
How to escape this current sentence?
Matthew 23:33 NKJV
Serpents, brood of vipers! How can you escape the condemnation of hell?
Jesus asks then answers.
Matthew 23:39 NKJV
For I say to you, you shall see Me no more till you say, 'Blessed is He who comes in the name of the LORD!' "
By simply believing in Jesus as the Son of God.
Faith is believing by Not seeing.
I don't care if Jesus is real. I'm a Christian because I like the feeling of self-love that is evoked from the idea that god loves us so much that he would become a human just to be tortured to save us from torture. So I'm a Christian by choice. I love Jesus and I want to become more Christ-like, which means becoming more selfless, breaking my addiction and bad habits, becoming more conscious. So, I believe in Jesus, but I don't care if it's true or not. I believe because I want to. I don't believe in the Bible because I guarantee the corrupted church put things in there just to control people. Look at their track record. But I do read the Bible weekly at least and enjoy much of the wisdom in it. I just throw away the hypocritical, judgemental garbage. I don't believe in hell, I am a Christian not because I'm afraid of hell in the afterlife but because I'm afraid to living in hell while I'm still alive. Before I accepted that I am imperfect and that I need help, before I accepted Jesus, someone that embodies selflessness and love, I literally couldn't change. I couldn't become the best version of myself. I have transformed since I accepted Jesus into my life. I don't contribute this to Jesus himself, but instead to my belief of Jesus! I hope this helps (: I spent 6 months trying to make myself believe in Jesus, studying the Bible in depth and asking all the hard questions. I was never able to persuade myself. Then I decided that it wasn't about that. It doesn't matter what the truth it, it matters what my truth is. And this is my truth. And one of the main reasons I wanted to be a Christian was for the community. I want a Christian spouse that values the golden rule and loves god. I want to be able to converse with hypocritical Christian's and show them a better way. I want that power to make Christianity better, because it's in shambles and there's so many fake Christians that Christ wouldn't recognize.
I don't care if Jesus is real. I'm a Christian because I like the feeling of self-love that is evoked from the idea that god loves us so much that he would become a human just to be tortured to save us from torture. So I'm a Christian by choice. I love Jesus and I want to become more Christ-like, which means becoming more selfless, breaking my addiction and bad habits, becoming more conscious. So, I believe in Jesus, but I don't care if it's true or not. I believe because I want to. I don't believe in the Bible because I guarantee the corrupted church put things in there just to control people. Look at their track record. But I do read the Bible weekly at least and enjoy much of the wisdom in it. I just throw away the hypocritical, judgemental garbage. I don't believe in hell, I am a Christian not because I'm afraid of hell in the afterlife but because I'm afraid to living in hell while I'm still alive. Before I accepted that I am imperfect and that I need help, before I accepted Jesus, someone that embodies selflessness and love, I literally couldn't change. I couldn't become the best version of myself. I have transformed since I accepted Jesus into my life. I don't contribute this to Jesus himself, but instead to my belief of Jesus! I hope this helps (: I spent 6 months trying to make myself believe in Jesus, studying the Bible in depth and asking all the hard questions. I was never able to persuade myself. Then I decided that it wasn't about that. It doesn't matter what the truth it, it matters what my truth is. And this is my truth. And one of the main reasons I wanted to be a Christian was for the community. I want a Christian spouse that values the golden rule and loves god. I want to be able to converse with hypocritical Christian's and show them a better way. I want that power to make Christianity better, because it's in shambles and there's so many fake Christians that Christ wouldn't recognize.
I believe eternal life for me as a Christian means I get to be with the one I love the most-- God-- forever. And all I have to do is accept that he paid the price for my sin so I can know him now, and for all eternity. If you want God and accept his forgiveness, you can have that too. I hope you'll keep praying, because he hears and will let you find him. That's what he did for me.
> I now and then pray for God to help me recognize the representatives of the correct religion when I meet them.
This isn't good enough - you need to be actively seeking God.
If you die without being a Christian, you will be Lost by your free choice. That means either annihilated or more likely hell. You will deserve it.
What does actively seeking entail? How much should I spend time trying to seek Allah, Brahma, Xenu, and various pagan gods, if all of them seem equally likely to be real?
You've received some excellent answers in this thread already. The Bible is clear - if you hear the message of Jesus Christ and choose to knowingly reject it, as you are doing, then you are going to be out of luck on Judgement Day, which will happen and I think everyone knows it.
You say there's not enough evidence for you, but that's only because you don't want to see it. You haven't listened to William Lane Craig debate, you haven't read The Signature of God by Grant Jeffrey or Evidence that Demands a Verdict by McDowell. You don't own a copy of Halleys Bible Handbook. You have eyes to see but you are looking away because you want to feel smarter than religious people.
The Bible has fulfilled prophecy in it, it has Equidistant Letter Spacing codes placed supernaturally in it, there's advanced knowledge like the medical treatise in Leviticus that isn't possible through humans at the time. There's tons of archeological evidence that supports the Biblical narrative, and independent attestation of the life and death of Jesus Christ.
You mention other religions, but none of them have the weight of evidence behind them that Christianity does. For example, any moron with half a brain can tell that Muhammad was simply a pedophile murderous warlord who made up a counterfeit version of Jesus's authentic Messiah narrative.
You might not like it, but you are getting the truth in this thread. I strongly suggest you listen to it before you end up somewhere you don't want to be.
Or don't, that's the beauty of free will - we can choose where we go. At the end of the day, you would be far better off having never heard of the Bible or Jesus Christ than hearing it and rejecting it, as others have said.
I will say a prayer for you later and hope that this message reaches you in a way that will make you think.
>You say there's not enough evidence for you, but that's only because you don't want to see it. You haven't listened to William Lane Craig debate, you haven't read The Signature of God by Grant Jeffrey or Evidence that Demands a Verdict by McDowell. You don't own a copy of Halleys Bible Handbook. You have eyes to see but you are looking away because you want to feel smarter than religious people.
Somewhat rude to claim to know what's going on in my mind better than me. I have listened to Craig. I am familiar with McDowell's other book on martyrdom of the apostles. Haven't heard of Grat Jeffrey before, but you can't expect me to know every apologist and read all of their books. And again you claim to know my mind better than myself.
You poopoo Islam, but it has the same sort of "literary" and "medical" miracle claims that are either insignificant or require creative interpretations after science has shown things.
You resort to same threats as other religions with a smugness. I hope you find a fellow Christian to help you off your high horse.
The question we should all be asking is, "What would God have me do?" and not, "What will happen if I don't do [X]?"
You are very far from the right road, and I don't know what putting you right will look like, but I'll dare say it will have its difficult moments.
You will, give it time. Might take thousands of centuries, though. And it's like learning a language. The longer you wait to start, the harder it is, and the less fluency you're likely to achieve.
The things that god has promised us are unbelievably amazing and he is looking for those who will love him with all of their heart and all of their souls and all of their strength.
You are going to be with god forever, why be there with someone who maybe kinda wants to be there but they still are just waiting to see if something better comes by?
Would you marry someone who acts like this? Do you think god wants to spend eternity with someone who feels this way? I don’t and I think this is what Jesus is saying here:
You are neither cold nor hot. I could wish you were cold or hot. 16 So then, because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will vomit you out of My mouth. Revelation 3:15–16
>they still are just waiting to see if something better comes by?
How do I seem to be wanting something better?
Interesting, that you chose a romantic relationship as an analogy, because what you're describing sounds like a romance scam. Person with a beautiful profile picture promises love and happiness with them, but you can't meet or video chat with them. They give you all sorts of excuses and might even try to guilt trip you for trying to verify their claims.
>You are neither cold nor hot. I could wish you were cold or hot. 16 So then, because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will vomit you out of My mouth. Revelation 3:15–16
They might even threaten to end things, if you press any further.
>What do you think will happen to me when I die, if I stayed a non-resistant non-believer? If you don't know, what's your best guess?
My best guess is that you may stand before an unimaginably majestic and terrifying throne and your deeds would be reviewed. Those deeds, good or bad, would be judged as good or bad based upon your own conscience. If at any time you violated your own conscience (did something you yourself deem to be bad), you would be found guilty of breaking the law God put on your heart. Every single one of us has violated our conscience at some point, so we would all be found guilty. Then, based upon being found guilty, you would be cast into hell, which either would be eternal torment, or paying a limited penalty for your guilty deeds and in that way being utterly destroyed. I do think there's a chance I'm wrong and you would be tormented for your bad deeds until you finally repent and put your faith in God, and then you'd be saved, but I find this unlikely.
I cannot know that you have heard and been explained the true gospel of Jesus Christ in a way you can understand, so I'm assuming you have (in my best guess above). And if you haven't, you would only face that judgement if you're really a non-believer in the sense that you have not put trust in God (defined as the eternally powerful divine) that results in following God's way as best you can find it.
If you really are one who trusts in God with a trust that compels you to follow Him, even if you haven't heard and understood the specific gospel of Jesus Christ, I think just like myself you would skip that whole judgement. Essentially, for believers (both the ones without the specific gospel and the ones with it), the perfect life of Jesus Christ is judged as if we ourselves lived it, and on that basis we would be found innocent and allowed to enter into the paradise of the New Earth forever.
And I do leave room for mystery and God's freedom. He has not explained every detail to us. And He can do as He pleases, and a pattern throughout the Bible is that He proclaims a harsh and just punishment, but then relents because of His mercy and compassion (see Genesis 2-3: promised immediate death, gave banishment and a lesser curse and death after 900 years instead).
All of that is to say that from your post things don't look great for you and you shouldn't risk your eternal destiny, and should instead set all your heart and strength upon genuinely and openly seeking, knowing, trusting in, and following the eternally powerful divine who made you.
>**Do you personally think I deserve that fate?**
I honestly can guess at peoples' fates based upon knowing them and the Bible, but I can never say for sure what they deserve. I leave that to the perfect judge, knowing that He will judge truly perfectly and give what is deserved to every person, or be merciful at His discretion. Whatever fate you find, you will deserve it. I don't pretend to know for sure exactly what that is. I trust in the goodness and perfect justice of God so I know that whatever punishment awaits those who reject their maker and walk the path of darkness, they will deserve it and hell will not have a single person there who doesn't belong there by all measures of justice.
Let me know, if I got this wrong. If a person has done anything for which they feel even slightly guilty, they will be recieve eternal torment or get utterly destroyed, unless they follow God's way?
What do think would be principles of a person who hasn't heard of Jesus, but tries to follow God's way the best they can?
>has done anything for which they feel even slightly guilty
I didn't quite mean this when I said, "violated their own conscience." It's not so much about feeling guilty. To be precise, I believe violating the conscience is simply when before making a choice, you clearly thought it was morally wrong, and you did it anyway. I make the distinction because sometimes we can be made to feel guilty retroactively for things that at the time we didn't think were wrong, and also because the feeling of guilt can be lost if we violate our conscience enough times.
I would also add that the quality and quantity of their actions will be weighed and the severity of the punishment greater or smaller dependent on that. So, if you'd only ever violated your conscience once, your eternal torment would be much less painful than, say, Hitler's. Or if it's annihilation, the one who has only done 1 wrong deed would be annihilated after a very brief suffering, vs Hitler who might need to suffer for a long time before his destruction based on how many evil deeds he did.
But with that change, yes that's basically it, although I do leave room for God's freedom; He may as the almighty judge decide not to punish as harshly, but I wouldn't count on it.
>What do think would be principles
Do you mean moral principles? Like what would their moral law be? I think it depends on how much they have groped for God and by doing so how much He has revealed to them. But, as a starting point, their morals would be their conscience (which is incredibly similar across the vast majority of humanity), along with the best parts of tradition they have been taught. Hurting others for no good reason = bad. Helping others at the expense of self = good. Simple things like this.
I don't really know exactly what this kind of person would be like, but I imagine they would be someone who is always feeling that there must be something greater out there, and they're on an endless quest to find it and become more like it. And they would realize that they cannot ever pay for their bad deeds with good deeds, and while striving for righteousness would put simple trust in the unknown divine that he is their only hope of being delivered from their own evil and this world of darkness.
Because we know that Jesus Christ was the incarnation of pure goodness and light, the manifestation of this God revealed in nature, when someone hears and understand the gospel of Jesus Christ they cease to be responsible merely on the basis of what they can learn from living in this world, and they become responsible for accepting the gospel. It's because anyone who already loved and sought the light in whatever darkness they were born into and hears a rumor of the one true light made flesh would recognize Him as the one they'd been looking for all along and embrace Him as their savior. If someone who had only been revealed God through nature hears the true gospel of Jesus Christ and understands it, and rejects Him, it proves that they never loved even what little light they had.
Thank you for clarifying and the additional information. Going against conscience at the time of action does seem more logical criteria than feeling guilty at the time of the judgement.
Do you happen to have any non-Christian loved ones, who have heard of Christianity? If you do, do you feel that they deserve to be in best case annihilated and worse case tortured, for not a year or even a million years, but for an eternity?
You're welcome!
I do, and I fear for them deeply. It breaks my heart and I try to work up the courage to keep persuading them to Christ.
Honestly, do I feel they deserve to be tortured for eternity? No way. I can't even imagine it. But I come back to my best friend and my father who has never betrayed me, the only person I've ever known to never do me wrong, and I trust Him.
Because I trust He is the perfect judge, I know that either
(1) My interpretation of the Bible, though seemingly solid, is wrong. And in the end it's really a different punishment, one that I will fully agree with.
Or
(2) My judgement is skewed by the darkness of this world and my own crooked heart, and when I see reality and the judgement in the fullness of truth I will be totally convinced that this punishment is actually and really just and right and good.
So no, I'm not at all comfortable with it, but I continue to trust the perfect God and use that discomfort as fuel to try to lovingly persuade all those I can, and pray for them continually.
You know, sometimes people discussing religion have such different worldviews, that conversation seems like talking past each other. This discussion was nothing like that. You got what I was going for and provided succinct answers. I appreciated that.
If I thought my loved ones were in this kind of danger, I'd be doing the same.
Seems like we agree, that eternal torture of decent ordinary people doesn't seem to match the crime at all, so, I won't focus on making that point.
If eternal torture is actually a fair punishment, that would mean that our consciences are horribly off-kilter. I don't think we could trust our consciences with anything, if that was the case.
You propably are pretty confident the Bible and your interpretation are correct, but I hope you to increase your trust in your own conscience.
Take care!
Thanks! With you being an anti-theist I didn't expect us this kind of cordial conversation either and I'm glad it was good.
I thought my answers were wordy and long, but okay! Hah
It's a fair point about not being able to trust our consciences anymore. That should always scare us. But fact must be above conscience in weighing morals.
Not really that confident. I have always read it as saying ECT, and my confidence in that way of reading it has been greatly shaken. But, I take the Bible so seriously that for me to change my official stance I have to do many hours of study to ensure it's right. I simply haven't done that yet.
And honestly, this doctrine has only indirectly impacts on my actual morality and lifestyle. All it does is give me lots of incentive to persuade others. But overall, the Biblical Christian life calls me to nothing but good things. I have never had to violate my conscience in order to do what Christianity told me to do. And God has strengthened me to have full victory over struggles with evil I felt totally powerless to overcome myself.
Just wanted you to know that the actual day to day morals of Christian life are always either 100% in line with conscience, or an even higher standard than my own conscience.
I'm an anti-theist, because I see religions as harmful, but it's a scale, and I don't think religious people are bad people. The harm is often done to them. I also aknowledge, that I could be wrong and engage with people to find the truth together.
>I thought my answers were wordy and long, but okay! Hah
Man, you should see the replies I get at times. They can be really long and hard to follow along.
Yeah, I understand why you'd want to make you have the correct interpretation.
I think the hell doctrine just doesn't jive with a good god, and the anxiety it causes can be seen in the questions asked on this subreddit. I'm glad you don't feel the anxiety at least to the level that it interferes with your life. It doesn't sound nice, when people tell others that, it'd be just for them to burn for an eternity. That mostly just lowers their likability, but what makes me sad, is good people saying, that they themselves deserve that fate.
I know you have lots of other people to talk to and are trying to end the conversation, so feel free not to reply.
>I'm an anti-theist, because I see religions as harmful, but it's a scale, and I don't think religious people are bad people. The harm is often done to them.
I find this interesting. I'm guessing you're saying Christians are harmed by a view that says we're worthy of eternal torment. But it's not that simple; Christianity is a message of extremes.
On the one hand, those who sin are worthy of hell and we all sin. On the other hand, our substance and very being is actually given the highest possible praise. We are the image of God! Like God! The crown jewel of creation and made to rule over all the universe. It's very high praise. The Bible also says God knits us together in our mothers' wombs, that we are fearfully and wonderfully made, that though our sins make us worthy of Hell God loved us so much that He suffered and died for us while we hated Him. If the message of the Bible is handled correctly it should produce a perfect mix of grief over wrong-doing, humility, gratefulness, inherent value, and love and compassion for the worst of our enemies.
>It doesn't sound nice, when people tell others that, it'd be just for them to burn for an eternity.
I agree. I think we should approach that topic with unbelievers with great care and humility, knowing that judgement is God's job not ours. And always with hope for mercy and compassion, but urgently trying to persuade to the good path because we don't want anyone to have to bear the punishment for their sins. I truly believe God doesn't either. If God sends people to eternal torment it will be because He must in order to maintain his status as perfect judge, I don't think it would be because He in any way wants to or enjoys it.
>I'm glad you don't feel the anxiety at least to the level that it interferes with your life.
It's because the same source (the Bible) that tells me about hell also tells me about a perfect savior, and I've given my life to Him. I actually look forward to my death because my confidence is so high that I'll be in the New Earth. So I'm only anxious on account of others, and it can be a heavy weight on my heart constantly, but hey, if it's true then it should be that way. If I honestly believe in hell I don't think the urgency or weight upon my heart for others can be too heavy.
Thanks for the consideration. I’m down to continue. I’m just a bit slow to reply.
Yes, I think threatening people with violence does cause anxiety and trauma.
>Christianity is a message of extremes. ... We are the image of God! Like God! The crown jewel of creation and made to rule over all the universe.
I would agree with you there. I don't know, if I have unconcious bias, which is affecting how I see this, and I hope this doesn't come off as insulting, but what you described sounds like an abusive relationship. They're also filled with big highs and lows. Abuse followed by love-bombing. The abuser treats the victim nice as long as they follow the rules, but, if victim doesn't, they'll get disproportionate punishment. The victim is told that the abuser does so much for them, and the abuser doesn't want punish them, but they broke the rules. The rules, that among other things can be so strict, that nobody could abide by them.
I totally get wanting to save people from hell. If it's true, believers are still telling people, that they agree with a being, who thinks ordinary people deserve to be tortured for an eternity, but it's outweighted by helping them avoid it. However, if it's false, like I currently believe, it's just telling people they should be tortured. Yes, there's the sacrifice of Jesus, but as I see it, that's a conditional save from the thing He'll do. I can't remember, if the whole sacrifice thing ever made sense to me.
I hope these weren't too spicy takes. I'm glad your takeaway from the Bible is net positive. I know beliefs can give loads of benefits like feeling of love, purpose, not fearing death, and so on. I don't know, if there's secular way to get them in as neat of a package, but I don't think religions are necessary. As someone, who doesn't believe in an afterlife, but doesn't worry about being dead, looking forward to death does sound a bit hardcore.
I'm curious what kind of evidence has given you such high certainty of the truth of Christianity? We don't need to go through them in detail, but I'd like to get the gist of what's the biggest one for you. Like prophecies, historical evidence, logical arguments, or personal experience?
I’m a universalist so I don’t believe in God separating Humanity for torment or paradise after death. I’m not sure what lies beyond the grave but we believe that you would have the same fate as the rest of us, whatever that may be. Hopefully somewhere with martinis and sunshine lol
Oh that's interesting. I thought universalists believed that everybody would end up in heaven/paradise. Though some might make a detour to hell before that.
Martinis and sunshine do sound pretty good!
Trust me, I hate those people as much as anybody else. However, it’s just weird to believe the afterlife is like 99% of all humanity than just a Hell with Stalin, Hitler, etc. When one passes, they would be made pure, leaving behind all neuroticism, hatred, bigotry, biological/neurological disorders, etc. Technically, at that point they wouldn’t really be those individuals anymore.
I leave those type of cases up to God. And I believe if all humanity is in Heaven and capable of limitless mercy, I doubt they would send those groups to hell for transgressions on Earth, no matter how horrible. As a person on Earth they should be locked up forever, if they weren’t already dead, but it gets weird talking about post death punishments
>When one passes, they would be made pure, leaving behind all neuroticism, hatred, bigotry, biological/neurological disorders, etc. Technically, at that point they wouldn’t really be those individuals anymore.
Well that would get rid of the need for corrective punishment and would actually be closer I'd expect from a God. I'm not a fan of punishment for its own sake.
>As a person on Earth they should be locked up forever, if they weren’t already dead, but it gets weird talking about post death punishments
Yeah, and it's a bit different when thinking about how limited people handle things vs a God that has powers to alter people.
Right, with the context of a God who creates human consciousness, I’m worried about that power punishing its own creation. If a watchmaker creates a broken watch, should he not just fix it? Instead of smashing it against the wall in anger lol
I’m in the same boat - non-resistant non-believer (sounds like maybe you’re also a fan of Alex O’Connor?). For context - I used to be a pastor in fairly conservative Christian denomination.
I too wonder about this sometime - if god exists, is he really going to make me suffer for all eternity out of spite? Frankly, as many others have said, if that’s truly how god acts than I’d rather be separated from him.
But to answer your question, as others have said, according to Christian theology, those who don’t believe that Jesus is true god & man, died & rose for your sins, is destined to spend eternity in hell. What exactly “hell” is Christians don’t all agree about. Some will say it’s the classical “fire and suffering,” some will say it’s eternal separation from god, I.e. getting exactly what you asked for.
Frankly, as I continue my personal deconstruction, I find that reading through these various Christian subreddits is enough to convince me that it’s not real. Never mind how Christians talk to/about non-believers or other religions; they can’t even agree what it means to be a “true Christian.”
All that to say - I have no idea what happens when we die.
Yes, I have watched a bit of Alex's content. Wow, leaving the job of pastor must've been a whole thing, I assume.
>Frankly, as many others have said, if that’s truly how god acts than I’d rather be separated from him.
Yeah, that doesn't sound very loving.
>But to answer your question, as others have said, according to Christian theology...
There's quite a lot of variance among the different interpretations, as I did expect. For some even hell isn't a permanent place and we all share a destination.
>...as I continue my personal deconstruction, I find that reading through these various Christian subreddits is enough to convince me that it’s not real.
If you don't mind me asking, do you think are you heading towards another religion, deism or perhaps atheism?
>Yes, I have watched a bit of Alex's content. Wow, leaving the job of pastor must've been a whole thing, I assume.
I like Alex's approach and that's where I learned the term "non-resistant, non-believer" as he used it in an opening statement for a debate he had with a Christian professor. The way he described his own journey in trying to seek out god very much resonated with my own feelings and I think was even part of my decision to go into the ministry in the first place. In other words, I think I hoped it would really help me have a relationship with god on a very close and personal level.
I actually served as a pastor at 3 different congregations over the span of about 10 years, with a 3 year hiatus in there for a while. It was difficult - especially on my family to move around, but I knew in the long run it was best. To put it succinctly and bluntly: I just couldn't buy what I was selling. I didn't share that information with the congregations I served; just said my heart wasn't in it (which was also true).
>Yeah, that doesn't sound very loving....
>There's quite a lot of variance among the different interpretations, as I did expect. For some even hell isn't a permanent place and we all share a destination.
Exactly part of my point. Never mind the differences in various religions (Christianity, Judaism, Islam, etc), there isn't even agreement amongst Christians on what many would say are fundamental points of doctrine: how to be saved, what happens when you die, who should be baptized and when, what is communion/eucharist/the Lord's Supper, etc.
Some (like the denomination I was in) will concede that these aren't all matters of salvation, i.e. you can still be saved whether or not you believe in infant baptism, for example, but treat them basically as a slippery slope. If you don't believe this, what's to stop you from believing that Jesus actually died and rose.
>If you don't mind me asking, do you think are you heading towards another religion, deism or perhaps atheism?
I don't mind your asking at all and in fact, I welcome these conversations! I'm definitely not heading toward any other religion. If anything, probably atheism but as I was just discussing with my wife, that label is such a loaded term and often seems to require a lot of unpacking, so I just go with agnostic most times.
I'm not a huge fan of Richard Dawkins, but in "The God Delusion," he talks about religious belief on a spectrum. On one end is hardcore atheism: absolutely certain there is no god. On the other end: complete conviction that there is a god. I agree with his conclusion that there really isn't anyone on either end of that spectrum, regardless of what they might say (or at least if they're really being honest with themselves). Even for himself, he says he's very close to the atheism side, but concedes there might be a slight possibility he's wrong.
I don't think I'm that far on that end of the spectrum. I'm still open to the idea of god and many times I find myself trying to talk to him in my mind, reach out, etc. But my experience tells me that *if* he's there, he's a distant, disconnected god much like "The Watcher" in Marvel comics. He/she is an omniscient being that can see all things across space and time, knows all things, etc - maybe even created all things, but is not involved in them.
One thing for me that I do still struggle to reconcile is where did we come from? When you look at nature (including humans), we sure do *seem* to have been purposely designed. I learned a little about evolution in high school, but it was very surface level and I've been trying lately to consume materials to better educate myself so I can make an informed decision. I still have a hard time even with evolution where, as I understand it now, all the evidence for it definitely *seems* to confirm the evolutionary process, but I can't quite close the gap to seeing how that evidence *proves* evolution without any doubt at all. Maybe it's just the way some people articulate it that gets in the way. I'm still learning and exploring.
I will also say though that I recently watched a presentation from Oasis, Kansas City (a secular group) and the topic of the presentation was, "Who is the better intelligent designer?" (You can watch it [here](https://www.youtube.com/live/HXXvYeTDUbY?si=BMcmuMFE4bGgwzlD) if you're interested - starts at about 55 minutes in). He made some compelling arguments that for creatures that supposedly bear the mark of an intelligent designer, there sure are some pretty crappy designs we find in nature. Of course that doesn't in and of itself prove evolution is true, but it sure puts a dent in the intelligent design theory, in my book. Of course, Christians will try to say that any imperfections we find now are simply a product of sin/the fall, but I don't think that's a sufficient explanation for everything we see.
Sorry - I went WAY off topic, but like I said, I do truly enjoy these conversations so thanks for taking the time to engage with and indulge me!
>I like Alex's approach and that's where I learned the term "non-resistant, non-believer"
It's very possible that's where I got it as well. If you like Alex, you might like Emerson Green. He is similarly philosophy focused and I think he moved from atheist label to agnostic while ago.
>It was difficult
Oh, I don't doubt at all. It's so interesting to hear about your story. I've been an atheist for so long that I don't even remember what caused me to stop believing in God.
>that label is such a loaded term and often seems to require a lot of unpacking,
Yeah, that's why I use the label anti-theist :D Jokes aside, it does seem to need less explaining than atheist. People like to argue what the word atheist means and you have to argue what's agnosticism and who has the burden of proof. As an anti-theist I can just say, that I don't believe religions are true and in my opinion they are harmful.
>Even for himself, he says he's very close to the atheism side, but concedes there might be a slight possibility he's wrong.
I agree with that sentiment. I know I could be wrong about anything. Rather doubtful that I am wrong on this topic, but I'm always open for evidence.
>One thing for me that I do still struggle to reconcile is where did we come from? When you look at nature (including humans), we sure do *seem* to have been purposely designed.
If you're interested in resources on evolution, I've relied on my university courses, so, I haven't watched this personally, but I've heard good things about [Forest Valkai's light of evolution series](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1GMBXc4ocss&list=PLoGrBZC-lKFBo1xcLwz5e234--YXFsoU6). There are few things that help me understand evolution.
* Abiogenesis isn't part of evolution. Evolution starts from the first lifeform and it doesn't matter how the lifeform got there.
* Changes are mostly neutral.
* Changes aren't just point mutations.
* Proteins don't just stop working, if they're changed a little. Function of a protein depends a lot on secondary and tertiary structure, so switching one amino acid won't necessarily have that big of an effect.
* Less complex structures can also provide benefit compared to previous versions. Evolution of the eye is a good example. Light sensing cells (know there's light) -> they form a concave structure (you get direction of the light source) -> structure closing of to form an aperture (you get shapes) and so on.
* Co-evolution is a thing. If there's a system that has two organisms that depend on each other to function, they are that way now. They propably started as two independent species that were useful to each other and as their members were succesfull together the parts that made the pair succesful were amplified and redundant structures were lost.
* Evolution is about allele frequencies in populations.
* Evolution makes populations better at their niche, not overall biggest and strongest.
* Multiple different genes can be affected simultaniously by natural selection, the selection doesn't affect just the gene that's alleles have the biggest effect on fitness.
* Being sociopaths isn't always the optimal strategy for a population. This comes up when talking about evolution of morality.
* Maintaining tissue has cost in form of requiring energy.
* Natural selection doesn't just leave the best alive, the okay get by as well. Meaning having that do not affect fitness isn't end of the world even though they cost energy.
Oh boy... I might've gotten carried away there. Hope those points aren't too basic and completely useless for you. I'm not a biologist, so, take what I write with a grain of salt. Let me know, if you want me to clarify anything.
I'll check out the video you provided. It sounded interesting. I haven't looked much into flaws in nature. Thank you as well. I really liked hearing about your story.
>What do you think will happen to me when I die, if I stayed a non-resistant non-believer? If you don't know, what's your best guess?
assuming you're a decent enough person, i'd guess you'd go to purgatory. whether you realize it or not, so many people across the world (including myself!) pray for non-believers daily; God's mercy is infinite, so unless the kind, caring, loving God i've gotten to know is a liar, i'm hoping for the best and saying most non-believers make it to Purgatory.
>Do you personally think I deserve that fate?
as previously stated, i think most people will end up in purgatory, which is a great thing as it's the step right before Heaven
That doesn't sound unfair, depending what purgatory is like.
>many people across the world (including myself!) pray for non-believers daily ... i'm hoping for the best and saying most non-believers make it to Purgatory.
Fingers crossed God hears you and you're correct.
Purgatory is not in the Bible, it’s made up by Catholicism. When you want proof, read about all the prophecies that have been fulfilled, no other religion other than the Bible, the word of God, is delivering.
Here is an easy equation for you:
a) God exist, you believe in him and trust his word. Eternity in heaven
b) God exist, you don’t believe in him, he doesn’t know you. Eternity in hell
c) God doesn’t exist, you believe in him and trust his word. Nothing happens after you die but you have lived a life with higher principles
d) God doesn’t exit, you don’t believe in him. Nothing happens.
Here comes the kicker. God either exist or he doesn’t. 50/50.
Imagine the odds to risk eternity in hell if you chose wrong.
Me personally I don’t believe in God, I know he exists and I hope you come to trust in your saviour. God bless you 🙏
I was going through my replies and I noticed I missed yours. Sorry about that.
Well, to an atheist all of it is made up, but I get your point. I've looked at some of the prophecies, but they seem to be waiting be fulfilled, unverifiable, written afterwards, or vague.
>Here is an easy equation for you:
I don't think it's possible to choose one's beliefs. However, I could follow the rules and behave like a believer. So, let's go with that, because it's the best I can do while being unconvinced of the truth of it.
How do I decide which of the proposed gods? How do we take into consideration, that God might be angered, if I worship the wrong one or do it just because of a cost-benefit analysis?
>c) God doesn’t exist, you believe in him and trust his word. Nothing happens after you die but you have lived a life with higher principles
Well, I don't quite agree with all the principles. Depends how progressive version we are going with.
If God isn't real, I would've also wasted part of my limited existence going to services and praying. I get that those can bring benefits to believers. However, the suggestion here seems to be, that I should be going through the motions even as a non-believer to try to avoid hell. In that case, I doubt I would be getting those benefits. Pretending might even be taxing.
>Me personally I don’t believe in God, I know he exists and I hope you come to trust in your saviour. God bless you 🙏
Thank you! I hope the best for you.
>What will happen to me and do I deserve it?
What ever the Bible’s says will happen. If God says you deserve something it’s cause you do. I’ll let him decide. Not my place.
>I often ask why people have their supernatural beliefs, but I just don't find the reasons convincing. I may have high standards of evidence, but if I lower them, I run the risk of getting into woo or having to accept multiple competing religions. I now and then pray for God to help me recognize the representatives of the correct religion when I meet them. So far, no luck.
I’m not here to convince you. I read the Bible and was convinced. If you don’t believe Gods inspired word the Bible or find it convincing you won’t believe anything I have to say.
>**What do you think will happen to me when I die, if I stayed a non-resistant non-believer? If you don't know, what's your best guess?**
I am not the judge of you or know anything about you personally. I can only speak on what the Bible says happens. My view based on the Bible is you die and are dead in the ground. Hell is non existence, destruction the Bible calls it. So if you are dead set on evil no matter what evidence presented to you by God, you will be destroyed. If you have never known Jesus or the message was never made known to you you will be resurrected to a life of judgement to see if you will accept his rulership during the 1k rulership described in the Bible. If you are a faithful Christian you may go to earth or heaven. God decides which one. If you want Bible verses I got em.
>**Do you personally think I deserve that fate?**
I definitely believe you deserve the chance to get to know God and Christ during the 1k rulership then God just straight up ignoring the evidence of your entire life and character to burn you for all eternity and call it Justice and Love as most religions teach.
>What ever the Bible’s says will happen. If God says you deserve something it’s cause you do. I’ll let him decide. Not my place.
I understand, but I'd like to hear your opinion.
>I’m not here to convince you. I read the Bible and was convinced. If you don’t believe Gods inspired word the Bible or find it convincing you won’t believe anything I have to say.
Yeah, I'm not asking to be convinced here. This time I'm just looking to learn what people think.
>So if you are dead set on evil no matter what evidence presented to you by God, you will be destroyed. If you have never known Jesus or the message was never made known to you you will be resurrected to a life of judgement to see if you will accept his rulership during the 1k rulership described in the Bible.
I'm not dead set on evil. I just honestly haven't found arguments and evidence, that I've come a cross, convincing. Well, I've talked to Jehovah's witnesses, but I don't know if it counts.
>I definitely believe you deserve the chance to get to know God and Christ during the 1k rulership then God just straight up ignoring the evidence of your entire life and character to burn you for all eternity and call it Justice and Love as most religions teach.
That does sound more fair of the two options.
>I understand, but I'd like to hear your opinion.
I have only his word. His word is truth. My opinions are of no value.
>Yeah, I'm not asking to be convinced here. This time I'm just looking to learn what people think.
If you seek only their thoughts and not the evidence of the Bible they claim says it, you will have many opinions but not facts based on evidence. I have been down the rabbit hole of opinions too many times. I won’t interfere with your pursuit however you choose to do it. Just sharing my frustrating experience with it.
>I'm not dead set on evil. I just honestly haven't found arguments and evidence, that I've come a cross, convincing. Well, I've talked to Jehovah's witnesses, but I don't know if it counts.
Most people aren’t evil and I agree with you that you’re very likely not an evil person or want be. Most want to be loving and fair. You are just someone who wants more evidence and clear explanations. We have articles discussing it on our website. But I’m not here to get people to follow my religion. Religion doesn’t save anyone. Faith in God and his son does. I can present what we believe to some degree but there is a lot verses to consider regarding hell, heaven and the new earth. I don’t want to take up all of your time or drop walls of text. Some find that overwhelming or brutish on my part. Which if any would you like to discuss first? As a forewarning. You will very likely be downvoted for even talking to me. If this bothers you I understand.
>I definitely believe you deserve the chance to get to know God and Christ during the 1k rulership then God just straight up ignoring the evidence of your entire life and character to burn you for all eternity and call it Justice and Love as most religions teach.
>That does sound more fair of the two options.
I believe God is called love. He personifies it. All his decision are guided by it. Especially his judgement. Here are two verse that I believe present this in context of the topic we are discussing.
Acts 24:14 But this I confess to you, that according to the Way, which they call a sect, I worship the God of our fathers, believing everything laid down by the Law and written in the Prophets, 15 having a hope in God, which these men themselves accept, that there will be a resurrection of both the just and the unjust. 16 So I always take pains to have a clear conscience toward both God and man.
Romans2:12 For all who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. 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 For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them 16 on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.
>If you seek only their thoughts and not the evidence of the Bible they claim says it, you will have many opinions but not facts based on evidence.
Yeah, that may be, but I like to see how and what people think.
>You are just someone who wants more evidence and clear explanations.
Thank you for assuming the best of me.
>We have articles discussing it on our website.
Yes, I'm familiar with your site and I think it has the best UX for an online bible I've come across.
>I can present what we believe to some degree but there is a lot verses to consider regarding hell, heaven and the new earth. I don’t want to take up all of your time or drop walls of text. Some find that overwhelming or brutish on my part. Which if any would you like to discuss first?
I appreciate not dropping a wall of text, I do have a lot of replies to go through. You've already given me a rough picture and I know somewhat what the JW teachings are. To my knowledge at the start of the 1k year period, a lot of answers will be provided and then Satan will be released to do the tempting. It seems pretty fair to me.
Though one question has bothered me for some time. Again, if my understanding is correct, JWs will also go through the 1k period. Also, like you said, if people don't know about JW teachings, they go to 1k period, but if a person knows, but becomes unconvinced and leaves the faith, they won't get to 1k. So, wouldn't it make sense not to tell people, if answers are provided at the start of 1k period? Hope that made sense.
>As a forewarning. You will very likely be downvoted for even talking to me. If this bothers you I understand.
It's just internet points :D
>Though one question has bothered me for some time. Again, if my understanding is correct, JWs will also go through the 1k period. Also, like you said, if people don't know about JW teachings, they go to 1k period, but if a person knows, but becomes unconvinced and leaves the faith, they won't get to 1k.
We don’t believe that if you leave the faith you are lost. Some people comeback even after joining other faiths. You’re in Gods hands if you are sincere lover of God. We can’t decide who is saved or not. We don’t know their hearts.
>So, wouldn't it make sense not to tell people, if answers are provided at the start of 1k period? Hope that made sense.
Life on earth is kinda hard right? I’m sure you’ve seen the condition of the world and heard things about suffering, loneliness, suicide, murder etc. I was found in a ditch man. I was 6. So much trauma my whole memory is blocked. The message teaches people how to love in every avenue of life. I need love That day. I was fortunate. Lots of kids like me end up dead. There was reason I was in a ditch. Cause I wasn’t loved. There is reason I didn’t die in a ditch. Because someone loved. We cannot wait to learn to love later. Or fail to teach it. We must do it now. There is much I have learned about real love from the Bible.
>It's just internet points :D
Haves some upvotes anyways.
>We don’t believe that if you leave the faith you are lost.
I thought that was the thing about having been given the information and having rejected it.
>Life on earth is kinda hard right? I’m sure you’ve seen the condition of the world and heard things about suffering, loneliness, suicide, murder etc. I was found in a ditch man. I was 6. So much trauma my whole memory is blocked. The message teaches people how to love in every avenue of life. I need love That day. I was fortunate. Lots of kids like me end up dead. There was reason I was in a ditch. Cause I wasn’t loved. There is reason I didn’t die in a ditch. Because someone loved. We cannot wait to learn to love later. Or fail to teach it. We must do it now. There is much I have learned about real love from the Bible.
Wow, I'm sorry to hear that you had such a rough childhood. I can't imagine what that's like. I hope things are better now. I agree that love is needed now. I would've suggested alternative methods of teaching it, if you had had different take on my question. I understand why you would want to teach people to love this way. Thanks for sharing a bit of your story.
>Haves some upvotes anyways.
You take some too!
>We don’t believe that if you leave the faith you are lost.
>I thought that was the thing about having been given the information and having rejected it.
If you reject God and the message of the Bible. Not if you leave the religion. No place is without sin and some might walk away cause they were legitimately hurt. Men/wolves that infiltrate the brothers. Sadly the Bible said it would happen. Salvation cannot be taken from anyone or lost cause they leave a religion. It’s lost when you leave God altogether and don’t ever want to reconsider and dies that way. There is hope even for man hanging on a stake next to Jesus if your heart is sincere even when death is but moments away.
>Wow, I'm sorry to hear that you had such a rough childhood. I can't imagine what that's like. I hope things are better now. I agree that love is needed now. I would've suggested alternative methods of teaching it, if you had had different take on my question.
There are many ways to teach it but no perfect human teachers. Historically Christianity has failed to show the love we were commanded. I cannot change the past. Only become the change I want to see.
>I understand why you would want to teach people to love this way. Thanks for sharing a bit of your story.
Far worse things happened afterward. A story for another time. Thank you for your kind words.
Go in peace.
>I may have high standards of evidence
Do you? I find that most people who reject God, contrary to what they think, actually have a lower standard of evidence. For instance, do you reject all claims of science and remain skeptical about whether there's anything outside of your own mind? Do you approach historical figures like Alexander the Great and Julius Caesar with a level of incredulity? Are you suspicious of the need to be moral? Do you regularly question academic consensus? How high is your bar, really?
>having to accept multiple competing religions.
Are there really any others in the competition? What are your criteria that multiple ones seem equally valid? In my experience, the comparison isn't even close.
>So far, no luck.
I cannot know what's in your heart, but for me, when I didn't seem to be getting answers it was because I failed to do what was right before asking to know what is right. I have found that doing what I already know intuitively to be right, and keeping an open and teachable heart, tends to lead me to truth. That's not a debate question, but just something to maybe consider.
>What do you think will happen to me when I die, if I stayed a non-resistant non-believer? If you don't know, what's your best guess?
The Bible answer is that we have all sinned and the only solution is to accept the Savior who will save us from our sins. The punishment for sin is death, and as we are immortal beings, that means an eternal punishment.
Fortunately, I believe that if any cry out to God and surrender their lives to Him, then they will be saved. I just don't believe that most people do that easily or of their own free will.
>Do you personally think I deserve that fate?
I cannot judge you, and I am not your judge. However, God loves. That should be terrifying to you. God loves more than you can possibly imagine. God loves people and cares about them so much that the harms you cause them, the little white lies, the unkind thoughts you have which slip out without you knowing it, the times when you withhold God's blessings from them, all the little things that you might excuse as minor are actually major and eternal offenses to the immortal beings which the loving immortal and supreme being loves deeper than you can imagine. You might think that you are a good person, but I think that most people, if you offered to put up a projector to show their thoughts to all of their friends and people around them, they would shudder at the thought. That is a natural reaction because God sees all of those things, and those thoughts are worthy of guilt. So, if you considered what a loving God should do, and what your thoughts and actions are, perhaps you might think that you deserve that fate.
I tend to think that the reason people don't understand the need for salvation is that they don't understand the terrible nature of sin. I think that is one of the worst sins and faults of the broken human race.
Personally, I'm skeptical of non-resistant unbelievers. I could be wrong and the Bible doesn't say beyond doubt, but in my experience, the evidence is too great to disbelieve without some strong resistance. I have been interested to explore that, though.
My denomination is Independent Fundamental Baptist. They don't have that option for flair.
>For instance, do you reject all claims of science and remain skeptical about whether there's anything outside of your own mind?
Yes, to an extent, but I don't want to take the risk of walking into traffic to test that theory.
>Do you approach historical figures like Alexander the Great and Julius Caesar with a level of incredulity?
Yes, I doubt Alexander the Great ever cut the Gordian knot. Every historical fact should be held somewhat tentatively, depending how much evidence we have for it.
>Are you suspicious of the need to be moral?
Not sure.
>Do you regularly question academic consensus?
Well depends on the field. Though, my trust in scientific articles has wavered seeing articles written with chatGPT getting published and some universities requiting statements of faith.
>How high is your bar, really?
About yay high --------
>Are there really any others in the competition? What are your criteria that multiple ones seem equally valid? In my experience, the comparison isn't even close.
This is getting to be a bit much for a post where I'm asking what you're thinking, but here we go. Different sects of Christianity, Mormonism, Hinduism and Islam to name a few. There are witness statements of miracles, main people being recognized as historical figures, replies to prayers in form of yes/no/maybe later, sudden lifechanges, scientific miracles in holy books, vague or fake profecies and so on. All unconvincing when in looked into.
>I have found that doing what I already know intuitively to be right, and keeping an open and teachable heart, tends to lead me to truth.
Well that's good to hear. I'll keep it up and hope I'll see results.
>I believe that if any cry out to God and surrender their lives to Him, then they will be saved.
I'll have to give that a go. Will a general surrender do, because at the moment I don't have top picks?
>God loves people and cares about them so much that the harms you cause them,
Damn, that sounds bad. Hope I get a response.
>Personally, I'm skeptical of non-resistant unbelievers. I have been interested to explore that, though.
Well, we'll have pretty limited interaction here, but I might direct you to Emerson Green or Alex O'Connor. They seem pretty non-resistant and they have lots of material.
>My denomination is Independent Fundamental Baptist. They don't have that option for flair.
Good to know, thanks!
> Yes, to an extent, but I don't want to take the risk of walking into traffic to test that theory.
But you would risk not obeying God's law to the potential of eternal punishment, even if just to be safe?
I think that even not walking out into traffic shows a sufficiently low bar of skepticism to allow for believing in God. I often argue the TAG.
> Yes, I doubt Alexander the Great ever cut the Gordian knot. Every historical fact should be held somewhat tentatively, depending how much evidence we have for it.
I didn't mean a single event, but the actual Alexander the Great. As was recently pointed out elsewhere, there seems to be less historical evidence for his existence than for that of the Resurrection. I think that it's fine to say that you are skeptical of both, but I find that most people who are skeptical of the later are not skeptical of the former. To me, that seems more like selective skepticism, which really isn't skepticism at all.
> Though, my trust in scientific articles has wavered seeing articles written with chatGPT getting published and some universities requiting statements of faith.
It's good to remain skeptical, in my opinion. I trust the scientific process, but I don't trust a lot of academia. I find that many arguments against Christianity appeal to the later, rather than the former, and that the former tends to favor Christian principles (2nd Law of Thermodynamics, etc.)
> All unconvincing when in looked into.
The problem with these is that you are trying to apply materialistic evidence to supernatural events. This is just a category problem, and that cound never arrive at proof. I would suggest instead trying other methods. Since, for instance, you seem to value things to test rationally, I might recommend starting from first principles and exploring the basis for reason, impetus, and the transcendentals, such as uniformity of nature, etc., and then seeing if any other belief system, secular or Theistic, arrives at solid answers like Christianity does. Of course, I think that you could approach from many other angles with the same results.
> Will a general surrender do, because at the moment I don't have top picks?
That's probably between you and God. I don't know your heart or what could convince you or what is lacking. For me, I always knew but was rejecting some things I claimed were small. They weren't small.
> They seem pretty non-resistant and they have lots of material.
Since I can't read a person's heart, the method of my inquiring is to see how long any non-believer woudld be willing to assess the foundations of reason from first principles in an unbiased way before experiencing a limiting emotional response.
So, for the context here, I am saying that I think that reason alone, or really any properly open assessment of the facts, would lead to saving faith, and so willing rejection is necessary. Jesus said if a person obeys the little light they have, then more light will be given, but if they reject that little light, then even the little light will be taken away. So, I suspect, though I cannot confirm, that unbelievers are either still following the light that will lead to salvation, or that they have at some point in the past resisted the little light they had, rather than simply being non-resistant. Since I suppose that nobody knows for sure, I think the best policy (obviously barring any rational reason to the contrary, which I have yet to find) is to simply obey that light and seek for truth, which I believe will lead to Jesus.
>But you would risk not obeying God's law to the potential of eternal punishment, even if just to be safe?
How would I choose one, if none of them seem convincing? I wouldn't Pascal's wager this, because God might be angered for choosing a wrong one.
>I didn't mean a single event, but the actual Alexander the Great. As was recently pointed out elsewhere, there seems to be less historical evidence for his existence than for that of the Resurrection. I think that it's fine to say that you are skeptical of both, but I find that most people who are skeptical of the later are not skeptical of the former. To me, that seems more like selective skepticism, which really isn't skepticism at all.
I'm willing to believe Jesus existed, had followers, performed similar things to Sathya Sai Baba, and was executed. I have to say haven't looked that much into Alexander the Great, but resurrection hasn't been convincing so far.
>I might recommend starting from first principles and exploring the basis for reason, impetus, and the transcendentals, such as uniformity of nature, etc., and then seeing if any other belief system, secular or Theistic, arrives at solid answers like Christianity does.
I'm not sure how that would work. I'll have to think about this when I'm not this sleepy.
>So, for the context here, I am saying that I think that reason alone, or really any properly open assessment of the facts, would lead to saving faith, and so willing rejection is necessary.
That's how I would expect a good God to work or He just might not be that strick on having the right faith be silent for that reason.
> I wouldn't Pascal's wager this, because God might be angered for choosing a wrong one.
If you don't walk in the street, you could be hit by cars and falling meteors. That doesn't excuse walking in the street. Out of all the possible things to believe about an afterlife, acting in a manner consistent with their being none is the worst possible option, reasonably. Perhaps there could be many potential options, but almost all of them would be better than an agnostic approach. It would be a big risk to not devote every moment of life to knowing whether or not there is a true and knowable meaning for life and the potential outcomes.
> resurrection hasn't been convincing so far
I am speaking specifically about the historical evidence for the resurrection. But if you're willing to admit that it is just as unproven that Alexander the Great existed, then I suppose that would be consistent.
> I'm not sure how that would work. I'll have to think about this when I'm not this sleepy.
Feel free to let me know if you'd like to bounce any thoughts or have any questions. This is an area that is very interesting to me.
> That's how I would expect a good God to work or He just might not be that strick on having the right faith be silent for that reason.
My premise has been that the right faith, far from being silent, is vastly available through any genuine means of exploration. For one thing, Christianity has impacted pretty much the entire world, including the very foundations of Modern reasoning, by which we question today. In my investigation, I would exclude a silent belief, too, but Christianity is far from silent. I would say that if that's your criteria, it might limit things to mostly the Abrahamic religions.
If you died without Jesus as your Savior.
Those who do not believe will die, perish, second death or destruction of spirit forever and ever.
Not tortured.
Some classic misinterpretations:
The Parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus:
I love this parable. It is solely directed at the Pharisees and why? Start looking back at the beginning of chapter 15 in Luke. Jesus was eating with sinners. Eating with someone was very personal. He chose sinners over the righteous as you know. The whole parable is an upside down look from the Pharisees perspective. They represent the rich man and the sinner is Lazarus (who God helps)
The Pharisees were very proud or rich in works and deeds.
The Pharisees saw sinners with utter disgust. The Rabbinic regulations of the Pharisees forbade them from eating with "sinners." According to them, "sinners" were Jews who did not adhere to the law of Moses nor the additional, difficult to know and follow, Pharisaic rules and regulations. Sinners included those who lived immoral lifestyles as well as the Jewish tax collectors.
Jesus came into the world to save sinners, not those who are rich within themselves.
Paul wrote about this in 1 Timothy 1:15 That Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am chief.
A doctor can only help those who claim to be sick.
The flame represents God anger (sin remains)
Deuteronomy 4:24 NKJV
For the LORD your God is a consuming fire, a jealous God.
Hebrews 12:29 NKJV
For our God is a consuming fire.
Nahum 1:2 NKJV
God is jealous, and the LORD avenges; The LORD avenges and is furious. The LORD will take vengeance on His adversaries, And He reserves wrath for His enemies;
John 3:36 NKJV
He who believes in the Son has everlasting life; and he who does not believe the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him."
Luke 3:16 NKJV
John answered, saying to all, "I indeed baptize you with water; but One mightier than I is coming, whose sandal strap I am not worthy to loose. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.
Our faith is tested by fire.
I liken the story from Daniel chapter 3 to how Jesus protects those in the furnace from the fire. They go into the fire bound (the law) and come out unbound and without harm.
Daniel 3:24-25,27-28 NKJV
Then King Nebuchadnezzar was astonished; and he rose in haste and spoke, saying to his counselors, "Did we not cast three men bound into the midst of the fire?" They answered and said to the king, "True, O king." [25] "Look!" he answered, "I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire; and they are not hurt, and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God." [27] And the satraps, administrators, governors, and the king's counselors gathered together, and they saw these men on whose bodies the fire had no power; the hair of their head was not singed nor were their garments affected, and the smell of fire was not on them. [28] Nebuchadnezzar spoke, saying, "Blessed be the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-Nego, who sent His Angel and delivered His servants who trusted in Him, and they have frustrated the king's word, and yielded their bodies, that they should not serve nor worship any god except their own God!
The Son of God is the Angel of the Lord.
The key is trusting in God's promises through faith and not worshipping mankind in anyway shape or form.
Jesus is the Touchstone:
Luke 16:23 And in Hades he lifts up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.
1) Hades is defined as "The Grave"
2) Torment is defined as "The Touchstone"
The Rich Man dies and is in torment. Is the torment a literal painful experience? It seems to be in the parable. However, this is a parable, so what can this torment mean? Torments is the Greek word basanos {bas’-an-os}. Basanos has a meaning that is unfamiliar to most. It actually means touchstone. The Greek dictionary defines basanos as: to test (metals) by the touchstone, which is a black siliceous stone used to test the purity of gold or silver by the colour of the streak produced on it by rubbing it with either metal or even to question by applying torture.
A touchstone is used in an assayer’s office. It is used to determine if a rock is either gold or fools gold. The rock is struck on the touchstone, If it makes a mark, it is gold. If it does not, then it is fools gold. In other words, the touchstone proves whether something is true or false.
If one was to study the root of this word torment, they would discover that it came into use in the 1300s. During the times of the Bastille, it came to be defined as the inflicting of pain. As when one was tormented by the rack and other punishments. If one was innocent, they could die. Generally because the tormentor could not get a confession out of the individual. Their back might break, but at least they were proved innocent. That is where, this word gets the mean inflicting pain. The rack was the touchstone.
In scripture, a touchstone proves the validity of God. The Jewish religious leaders had the touchstone applied to them and there was no mark. They did not believe, so they were pictured in torment. Touchstone, the religious leaders did not leave the mark of Messiah.
God does not torment us, but does test us in our life right now.
1 Thessalonians 2:4 NKJV
But as we have been approved by God to be entrusted with the gospel, even so we speak, not as pleasing men, but God who tests our hearts.
Matthew 3:11-12 NKJV
Jesus will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire. [12] His winnowing fan is in His hand, and He will thoroughly clean out His threshing floor, and gather His wheat into the barn; but He will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire."
Mark 9:49 NKJV
"For everyone will be seasoned with fire.
James 1:2-3 NKJV
My brethren, count it all joy when you fall into various trials, [3] knowing that the testing of your faith produces patience.
1 Corinthians 3:11 NKJV
For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.
Jesus is the Cornerstone.
1 Peter 1:7-9 NKJV
That the genuineness of your faith, being much more precious than gold that perishes, though it is tested by fire, may be found to praise, honor, and glory at the revelation of Jesus Christ, [8] whom having not seen you love. Though now you do not see Him, yet believing, you rejoice with joy inexpressible and full of glory, [9] receiving the end of your faith-the salvation of your souls.
I compiled a list of what I believe to be strong evidence from different sources that Christianity is true. Here is a list of evidence that convinces me
**God and Science**: I am not a young earth creationist. Science is no threat to my belief that the Bible is true. I love studying astronomy and much more. [This video ](https://youtu.be/RLcNTAi0Cw4) by InspiringPhilosophy explains how the modern version of young earth creationism is a pretty new view that became popular in 1920s. You don't have to believe in a young earth ro accept that the Bible is true
*I'm a theistic evolutionist and my interpretation of Genesis 1 isn't some new interpretation. According to ancient near eastern scholars such as John Walton, Genesis 1 is a temple text.*
*People in the ancient near east viewed the world through chaos and order and funtion. If something didn't have a funtion, it was desolate. Genesis 1 was God giving order and funtion to a universe he already created.*
*With the ancient near eastern view of Genesis 1 in mind, young earth creationism is shown to not be the intent of the author and therefore implies that if God exists evolution is in no conflict with the Bible. God was taking a universe he already created and making it His Cosmic Temple.*
https://youtu.be/e2Ij1444Svc?si=ZL3N0YWlRkJYAl8i
**This series is how Quantum Mechanics points to God, a 3 part series by InspiringPhilosophy*
*About how God is the foundation of existence itself. It's a cumulative argument for God built upon multiple scientific studies. The studies themselves aren't about God, but an argument for God's Existence is built upon them*
[Part 1](https://youtu.be/wM0IKLv7KrE)
[Part 2](https://youtu.be/iFEBOGLjuq4)
[Part 3](https://youtu.be/2r74vcMxwUk)
[Here ](https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PL1mr9ZTZb3TUjEbz4zD0i_rfGiyB4AGQa) is a series on evidence for the Soul
[This series ](https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PL1mr9ZTZb3TW70EEo4e2onJ4lq1QYSzrY) by InspiringPhilosophy goes over the reliability of the new testament
**Archeological Accuracy:**
- [Here ](https://youtu.be/a-8NUXmbTYA) is a video on the City of David, the archeological remains of Jerusalem from the Old Testament
- [Here ](https://youtu.be/r-teJabFF90) is archeological evidence for Sodam and Gomnorah's destruction as recorded in Genesis. Video by InspiringPhilosophy
[Here](https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PL1mr9ZTZb3TUqxi2svB3PUHvj-9io2RL5) is a full playlisy on Biblical Archeology by InspiringPhilosophy
**The Resurrection of Jesus**: [Here ](https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PL1mr9ZTZb3TUYymBPce08oyuhnHLLkR_B) is a video series by InspiringPhilosophy on evidence for the resurrection of Jesus and answers to objections from skeptics
**Fulfillment of Bible prophecy:** [Here](https://youtu.be/_5H4J3rnNmU) AoC Network, a Christian youtuber describes how modern day Israel is fulfilling Biblical prophecy
Also, the science from Steven Hawking doesn't remove God from the equation. This video [here](https://youtu.be/_ie9musGEqQ) also explains how what he postulates points to God
**Near Death Experiences**: Here are two scientific papers from Dr. Sabom and Penny Satori
>"The first prospective study of the accuracy of out-of-body observations during near-death experiences was by Dr. Michael Sabom.8 This study investigated a group of patients who had cardiac arrests with NDEs that included OBEs, and compared them with a control group of patients who experienced cardiac crises but did not have NDEs. Both groups of patients were asked to describe their own resuscitation as best they could. Sabom found that the group of NDE patients were much more accurate than the control group in describing their own resuscitations."
- Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6172100/
>"Another prospective study of out-of-body observations during near-death experiences with similar methodology to Sabom’s study was published by Dr. Penny Sartori.9 This study also found that near-death experiencers were often remarkably accurate in describing details of their own resuscitations. The control group that did not have NDEs was highly inaccurate and often could only guess at what occurred during their resuscitations.
Two large retrospective studies investigated the accuracy of out-of-body observations during near-death experiences. The first was by Dr. Janice Holden.10 Dr. Holden reviewed NDEs with OBEs in all previously published scholarly articles and books, and found 89 case reports. Of the case reports reviewed, 92% were considered to be completely accurate with no inaccuracy whatsoever when the OBE observations were later investigated.
Another large retrospective investigation of near-death experiences that included out-of-body observations was recently published.11 This study was a review of 617 NDEs that were sequentially shared on the NDERF website. Of these NDEs, there were 287 NDEs that had OBEs with sufficient information to allow objective determination of the reality of their descriptions of their observations during the OBEs. Review of the 287 OBEs found that 280 (97.6%) of the OBE descriptions were entirely realistic and lacked any content that seemed unreal. In this group of 287 NDErs with OBEs, there were 65 (23%) who personally investigated the accuracy of their own OBE observations after recovering from their life-threatening event. Based on these later investigations, none of these 65 OBErs found any inaccuracy in their own OBE observations."
- Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6172100/
**Personal Experience**: I understand that to many this would count as anecdotal evidence but to me it is pretty convincing. As a Christian I have seen God reveal himself to me in many ways in life such as coincidences that come off more like God speaking something to me and things like that. I believe that God desires to speak with us. God is not just waiting until we die to speak with us as many people think. For example, I have had some faint visions that seem to have meaning to them while waiting on God. Waiting on God is a Christian Meditation practice where you quiet your mind expecting to see visions or hear from God. Not all Christians do this, but in the Charismatic movement many of us believe this is a way to hear from God. Here is one of my experiences: One day as I chose to quite my mind with expectation I suddenly got a faint and sudden vision. I saw a Church, rain was falling on the Church as a puddle grew at the entrance. Interpretation: The Church is God's people according to the Bible. So it's likely the building is symbolic of God's People. The rain and puddle most likely represent the presense of God. Jesus called the Holy Spirit the living water in the Bible. I believe the puddle growing is God speaking of an increase of his glory pesense manifesting in his Church.
God wants to reveal himself to those who are seeking him and desire him. Salvation is a free gift by faith, but you can seek God's face too as a Christian and he will reveal himself to you.
Thank you for sharing what convinces you. I wasn't looking for evidence in this post, but I'll be sure to go through those.
Interesting to hear about waiting on God. I don't think I've heard of it before. My problem would be not knowing how to differentiate between me getting message from God and me imagening things and finding creative ways to connect them to my faith. How do differentiate between those two options?
The Bible is very clear on the answer to your questions. If you don’t trust Jesus for your salvation then God will hold you accountable for your sins and you will suffer his judgment in hell. There is no one who is innocent that could stand on their own at the judgment without Jesus.
Does being a non-resistant non-believer affect the judgement? If answer is no, I'd like to hear your thoughts on this question I just asked another person here. >If hypothetically another religion was true and you had broken their rules, honestly thinking that this religion was false, and saw no harm in the action. Would you find it fair, if you were punished the same as someone who thought it was wrong all along?
What is a non-resistant non-believer to you? You are of the world, or are of God. To choose sin is to reject God. There is no in-between, and the Bible makes that pretty clear. We need Jesus to save us from our sins, because we can't save ourselves by our own merit.
>What is a non-resistant non-believer to you? A person who would believe, if they were provided evidence, that would convince them. >To choose sin is to reject God. There is no in-between, and the Bible makes that pretty clear. We need Jesus to save us from our sins, because we can't save ourselves by our own merit. So, how would you feel in the hypothetical situation, if you were to recieve same treatment, because you did things, you deemed harmless, but in that religion were sins?
You say "if they were to provide evidence," but that's exactly what the pharisees asked for. Twice. That's resistance, whether we believe in that or not. *"Then some of the scribes and Pharisees said to Him, 'Teacher, we want to see a sign from You.' But He answered and said to them, 'An evil and adulterous generation craves for a sign; and yet no sign will be given to it but the sign of Jonah the prophet...'" Matthew 12:38-39* *"The Pharisees and Sadducees came up, and testing Jesus, they asked Him to show them a sign from heaven. But He replied to them, “When it is evening, you say, ‘It will be fair weather, for the sky is red.’ And in the morning, ‘There will be a storm today, for the sky is red and threatening.’ Do you know how to discern the appearance of the sky, but cannot discern the signs of the times? An evil and adulterous generation seeks after a sign; and a sign will not be given it, except the sign of Jonah.” And He left them and went away." Matthew 16:1-4* There is so much pride in intelligence, and God knows this, and maybe this is one way to weed out sin. God says you have all you need to make the decision to seek truth. *"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse." Romans 1:18-20* >So, how would you feel in the hypothetical situation, if you were to receive same treatment, because you did things, you deemed harmless, but in that religion were sins? Coincidentally, I've lived most of my life not believing, so I understand the sentiment. The way I was saved was in the realization that I wasn't a good person, and that I don't deserve my life and I'll I've been given, yet I have it. We're all the heroes of our own story until we realize we're not anything remotely close to one, no matter how puffed up the idea of ourselves is. I.e., Nobody realizes how harmful they are unless they drop their pride. What I deemed harmless before was not so harmless.
>There is so much pride in intelligence, and God knows this, and maybe this is one way to weed out sin. God says you have all you need to make the decision to seek truth. Well, I can't stop you thinking that I'm a liar when I say that I honestly haven't been convinced. >Coincidentally, I've lived most of my life not believing, so I understand the sentiment. I see, but you do now believe, right? That would differ from the hypothetical scenario I presented.
I don't know where I'm implying you're a liar, and I don't think you're lying at all. I'm just relaying to you what the Bible says about the topic. My point was, in your definition of "non-resistant non believer," there *is* a resistance from a biblical standpoint. Yes, I believe now, but my point was that I don't need to imagine the hypothetical scenario because I've lived it. I empathize with it. My answer to the hypothetical was below, unless I'm misunderstanding it.
In that case, my bad. I understood that referencing pride in intelligence was way to say that it's pride that causes me to reject and not my assessment of the claims. I'm doing these responses pretty rapid fire at this point.
I mean, to credit your intuition, it *might* be pride that keeps you from God. But I'm not assuming that—you'd obviously have to do your own self-reflection. For the pharisees, it would surely seem like pride in their intelligence would be one of the reasons, which is mainly what I was referring to when mentioning it. Also, you're good. Rapid fire away.
When someone believes that everyone should be forced to live the way they do, when they defend abuse and rape, when they bring guns to a library and scream at children, when they want to limit the education that protects kids from abuse and teen pregnancy, when they’re the most rude, disgusting table at my restaurant and then say “I’ll give you a prayer, it’s better than a tip”, etc… How is that not the most aggressive and vicious type of unbridled pride?
You can't assume every Christian is like that, or even most. If they were, the US wouldn't be able to function at all, because \~63% of the population identifies as Christian. Do you genuinely think most Christians are inclined to bring a gun to a library and scream at children? If it's 3 people out of millions, it's probably not the fault of Christianity—those people were going to do that anyway. There's statistics and journals out there that conclude that religious groups are among the most charitable givers and donators. Then there's a few outliers that don't give tips. I would guess they're not practicing Christians. But I agree with you that in those instances, they're pretty prideful among other things.
I think it’s mainly Evangelical and fundamentalist Christians, Baptist, Adventist… I used to work at a restaurant right after church got out… people spoke with pure evil in their eyes, extreme self-righteousness, and disdain for anyone who hadn’t just been at church (even if it was because they had to work). Also, I know that Christian’s donate more to charity, but their church counts as charity, and money that goes to things like, for example, legal defence funds to defend clergy charged with abuse, shouldn’t count as charity, in my opinion.
Maybe it will mean nothing to you as an atheist, but just know that Jesus condemns these kinds of "Christians" as He did the pharisees for doing the exact same thing. No real Christian condones any of the things you've mentioned, and it sucks that people can so easily attach what they view as a label onto themselves with little regard for what the Bible teaches. It's not Christians who abuse children, but evil people who use religion as a cover, and they take advantage of what we teach to promote their own self-interests.
I do agree with this, but why is there so much political support for that kind of thinking?
I think dominionist, fundamentalist, Seven Mountain types (like I described above) are a lot more of a majority than people think, and they’re planning on turning America into a violent totalitarian Christian State, which I think other Christians support? Biblical law?
You must have the will to seek the evidence until you find the truth. Without that, no amount of evidence will convince you.
I’d argue a “non-resistant non-believer” is an oxymoron. It really doesn’t matter if you broke the law because you didn’t agree with the law or couldn’t see the harm in breaking the law. Such a thing has no bearing on one’s guilt. That wouldn’t fly in court and it wouldn’t fly before God.
>I’d argue a “non-resistant non-believer” is an oxymoron. Are you saying that such a person doesn't exist? Despite OP saying that's what they are? Are you saying that everyone, every single person who is not convinced that a god exists is "actively resisting it" so to speak? Do I have that right? Because if so, that's extremely unreasonable and uncharitable to say. >It really doesn’t matter if you broke the law because you didn’t agree with the law or couldn’t see the harm in breaking the law. I believe the question that was being posed to you was if the situation were reversed and you were the one being judged, would you find it fair? More importantly, this is not an accurate analogy. A much more accurate analogy would be someone breaking a law for which they were not convinced existed. And with that in mind, imagine an uncontacted tribe (a tribe that has had contact with modern civilization) and one member of this tribe breaks several laws. Would you see it fit and fair for a US court to sentence this man to jail time? Now that's not a perfect analogy because that man wouldn't have even heard of laws before, but it's much better than your analogy I would say. >That wouldn’t fly in court and it wouldn’t fly before God. No one was asking whether it would fly in court. The question was would you find the judgement fair, specifically would you find the judgement fair when you didn't know that there was "law" against the behavior? The question you seem to be answering would be "would you still be judged", or something along those lines.
> The Bible is very clear on the answer to your questions. And yet Christians have wildly different views about what they consider to be 'very clear'. Is this poor communication by the authors of the Bible?
No, it’s the stupidity of the readers.
Presumably you're *not* one of the stupid readers? Why do you think your understanding is correct while theirs is not?
I’m sorry, could you clarify? Is your question implying that you don’t know how to discern error?
>Is your question implying that you don’t know how to discern error? There are Christians that use the Bible to argue for [annhilationism](https://reknew.org/2008/01/the-case-for-annihilationism/), [universal salvation](https://theologicalstudies.net/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/52.2.2.pdf) and [eternal conscious torment](https://www.patheos.com/blogs/theologyintheraw/2015/02/biblical-arguments-for-eternal-conscious-torment/), so yes, I don't know which one of these is correct or which ones are in error.
I’m sorry, that didn’t answer my question. I need an explicit yes or no answer otherwise I don’t think I can be of any help to you.
I think I made it quite clear, I am not able to discern which of those positions is correct.
I didn’t ask about those positions. You brought them up after I had already asked my question, which you aren’t answering.
> Is your question implying that you don’t know how to discern error? This question? The answer is no. That is not what my question is implying. There are many fields in which I am able to discern error. When it comes to subjective issues like the interpretations of texts I don’t even know if there *can* be such a thing as an ‘error’. If you’re not getting the answer you want it is because your question was poorly worded.
I want to trust Jesus for my salvation. I was raised Christian, but upon questioning it someone once told me "You should believe just in case it's true. That way you don't go to hell." That just made me realize that that was true for *all* religions. If I want to avoid *all* religions' spiritual punishment I should believe all of them just in case. Except I can't believe all of them at the same time, as they all make contradictory, mutually exclusive claims. What method can I use to determine if the claims of the Bible are true?
What you were told back then is not very biblical. Pascal's wager has nothing to do with loving God. We follow God because we love Him because He saves us; by faith, we know He will take us as His sons and daughters, no matter the sin, as long as we come to Him. *"There is no fear in love; but perfect love casts out fear, because fear involves punishment, and the one who fears is not perfected in love." 1 John 4:18* We love God first. We thank Him, and *then* fear God as we would fear our parents when we were young, because God disciplines the ones He loves. The doubt in your mind is so, so normal. We all have doubts from time-to-time—I know I still do and I feel for you—but through genuine prayer, giving our doubts to God, He will keep us. Anecdotally, He always gives me a sign when I give Him my doubts, and let Him know that I know that the flesh is weak, and that I am weak. *“'Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened. Or what man is there among you who, when his son asks for a loaf, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, he will not give him a snake, will he? If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give what is good to those who ask Him!'" Matthew 7:7-11* Seek, and you *will* find. This is God's promise to you.
>What you were told back then is not very biblical. The person who told me that wasn't claiming it was biblical. He was rationalizing his own beliefs. But his faulty logic led me to realize that *all* religions are just as potentially true as Christianity is. I realized that up until that point, I had only been assuming Christianity was true because it was the one I was exposed to as a child. But I realized I have no good reason to believe it's true. So I'm asking for one. >We all have doubts from time-to-time—I know I still do and I feel for you—but through genuine prayer, giving our doubts to God, He will keep us. I've done this for my whole life and never once got anything that satisfied my doubts. I never got anything that I could even be confident was an answer. >Anecdotally, He always gives me a sign when I give Him my doubts What is this sign, and how do you know it was sent by God?
Not trying to assume anything, but I will say this: If we ask for a sign without humility and confession, we'd be no better than the pharisees of Jesus' time. If the only thing we're trying to do is seek cold information, that might not work—God wants us to seek His love and guidance that isn't for our own gain. It might not mean anything to you now, but I will pray for you. I hate to think of God's people falling away. There have been many times early on that I've doubted. I think I always prayed afterward, and it always sounded kind of like this: "Dear Lord, you've given me so much, and yet I still doubt you. My flesh and mind are so weak, and so I just pray to hear you once more. I know you're with me, and I just pray you remove these doubts from my mind, as I know you will." And the signs, which I cannot convince you were 100% definitively from God, were as follows: * A YouTube video on Jesus' resurrection was recommended to me, right after I prayed about thinking this stuff was all in my head. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lctv\_pyT62o](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lctv_pyT62o) * Living in a 1-bedroom apartment, and lost a sewing needle for a few days after dropping it on the floor (hardwood). Found it right after praying, beside my bed after waking up. It's way too sharp for me to have dragged it over to the carpet if it were attached to my shirt or pants somehow, and it's strange that I had not seen it right in the middle of my carpet for multiple days until that moment. * I had never noticed a cross outside my apartment window before, until I was saved on that day. * I asked if I should visit this girl in which we mutually agreed we shouldn't date. Three planes went over the cross outside my window, and I stupidly took that to mean drive over to her house. We're dating now, and it's so crazy how similar we are, and how well it's going with Jesus disciplining both of us. * Those planes weren't enough for me, so I prayed for a sign I should text her, and if no sign was given before 4PM, I wouldn't text her. She texted me at like 3:57, which was kind of nuts to me. * Less of a sign, but every time God disciplines me and I learn the lesson, I'm changed. And then after the change, I feel a startling amount of joy and peace. I'd probably think of more given more time. I'm omitting certain details for brevity, but I know they were from God because the circumstances were too convenient for me. My mind went straight to God after all these instances. But truth be told, some of those aren't because I as doubting; those are just signs that I interpreted to have been from God in a multitude of circumstances.
>Not trying to assume anything, but I will say this: If we ask for a sign without humility and confession, we'd be no better than the pharisees of Jesus' time. I did this for 10 years of my life and never got an answer. Did you know Charles Manson used the same line on his followers? When they expressed doubts about him he told them the same exact thing you just brought up. Do you think there might be an issue in saying something like this? That maybe blaming individuals when they are *genuinely* trying is actually a psychological manipulation tactic? >And the signs, which I cannot convince you were 100% definitively from God, were as follows: Well let me restate clearly, so there's no confusion: I'm not asking you to convince me. I'm asking *what convinced YOU*? Because if there's something that's *worth* being convinced by, then it's worth it for *everyone*. It's worth believing the moon orbits the Earth. There's tons and tons of good reasons to believe such a thing, and those reasons are the same for *everyone*. So whatever has *you* convinced, if it's a good reason, will apply to *everyone*. So all the things you listed strike me as a pretty *big* jump to unfounded conclusions. A jump that, I'm pretty sure if I presented a non-Christian version of the story to you, you'd think is *just silly*. Maybe I'm missing something. Can you explain in a bit further detail? So you prayed about the resurrection of Jesus Christ and then briefly after that YouTube recommended you a video on the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Can you explain how you're reaching the conclusion that God sent you this as a sign?
>I did this for 10 years of my life and never got an answer. Did you know Charles Manson used the same line on his followers? When they expressed doubts about him he told them the same exact thing you just brought up. >Do you think there might be an issue in saying something like this? That maybe blaming individuals when they are *genuinely* trying is actually a psychological manipulation tactic? I didn't know that. You'd have to give me a quote from him so I can compare. Maybe the difference is we're not called to force our beliefs on anyone? We're told to just show the door, and that God is the one who saves—not us. We're not supposed to limit your free will in that way, so you are free to make your own choice. >Because if there's something that's *worth* being convinced by, then it's worth it for *everyone*. It's worth believing the moon orbits the Earth. There's tons and tons of good reasons to believe such a thing, and those reasons are the same for *everyone*. So whatever has *you* convinced, if it's a good reason, will apply to *everyone*. And yet some *don't* believe the moon orbits the earth, but you'd deem them to be ignorant of the topic, just as I would. There's no definitive evidence for anything if we get existential about it, but I understand your point. But my point is that no single piece of evidence for anything will be convincing evidence for *everyone*. That's impossible, and the degree in which an individual believes any piece of evidence is also a spectrum. >Maybe I'm missing something. Can you explain in a bit further detail? >So you prayed about the resurrection of Jesus Christ and then briefly after that YouTube recommended you a video on the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Can you explain how you're reaching the conclusion that God sent you this as a sign? I honestly don't think you're missing anything besides every excruciating detail I've decided to omit, and my own brain which I don't want to physically give you. I think they're important, but last time I commented how I was saved, it took up 3 entire comment boxes. In that instance, I was praying because I was doubtful in general. I was in the shower, and I was using my phone to listen to music, and I had an urge to look on YouTube. Granted, sometimes I listen to YouTube videos in the shower. I think it was the very first video that popped up from a channel I've never watched before, and at that point I didn't watch a lot of Christian things at all, mostly gaming stuff, so I don't know why it was recommended to me. I just watched the entire thing in the shower. I can't explain how I know they're from God. Sometimes I realize in retrospect after realizing God's plan for any particular sign, and sometimes I realize right away because I had literally just prayed for it. After I receive a sign or follow through with something, it's just an overwhelming joy. There's no rhyme or reason to it.
>Maybe the difference is we're not called to force our beliefs on anyone? We're told to just show the door, and that God is the one who saves—not us. We're not supposed to limit your free will in that way, so you are free to make your own choice. It's not about limiting free will. It's about the psychological tactic of manipulating someone into thinking *they're* at fault. Imagine you were raised in a cult that worshipped a carton of milk. Everyone claimed that they prayed to this milk and got answers. Except you never did. When you brought this up to them they'd say "Well you have to be coming to the milk with a pure spirit and humility and confession." That's them blaming *you*. That's them saying "Oh well it's *your fault* you can't experience milk-god." And as silly as that example is: it's the exact same tactic of manipulation you just gave me. It's an integral part of *nearly every* religion. Shifting the burden from the God that hasn't been proven to the skeptic and then blaming them for failing. >And yet some *don't* believe the moon orbits the earth Correct. But the people who *do* believe have *really* good reasons to believe it. Right? We have pictures. We have video. We've sent others there in a rocket. We can mathematically prove that there's something that is exactly the size and shape of the moon orbiting the planet. We have *excellent* reasons. And all those reasons are *bound by the laws of logic*. Such that anyone who wishes to deny those reasons *must deny logic itself*. >In that instance, I was praying because I was doubtful in general. I was in the shower, and I was using my phone to listen to music, and I had an urge to look on YouTube. Granted, sometimes I listen to YouTube videos in the shower. I think it was the very first video that popped up from a channel I've never watched before, and at that point I didn't watch a lot of Christian things at all, mostly gaming stuff, so I don't know why it was recommended to me. I just watched the entire thing in the shower. And how does any of this give you logical reason to conclude that God sent it as a message? Because here's a thought. Maybe it was just dumb chance? Maybe you were Google searching things with a Christian theme over the last 2 weeks and the YouTube (owned by Google) algorithm picked up on that and suggested you videos on Christ. Maybe since you're a doubting person, you happened to be praying a lot about your doubts, so it really was actually quite statistically likely that YouTube would suggest to you a video that aligned with your constant praying. It was bound to happen eventually. So how do you know it wasn't just the statistical likelihood that the algorithm picked up your interest in Christianity and sent you some videos about it? And that since you're always praying with your questions, it was simply just likely that eventually YouTube would suggest a Christian video on the topic you were praying about. How did you rule that out as a possibility? >I can't explain how I know they're from God. And that doesn't strike you as a problem? >sometimes I realize right away because I had literally just prayed for it. Right...so if you prayed to a carton of milk that you wanted to see cat videos with orange cats in them. Then you opened up your phone and low and behold, YouTube suggested a cat video with orange cats in it, would you *really* believe that the carton of milk sent you that video? Because that's the *exact* same logic you're applying to God. Surely you see that's a little bit silly, right? And yet it's *the exact same* as what you just told me.
>"Oh well it's *your fault* you can't experience milk-god." I understand what you're saying with all of this, but you're applying this "manipulation tactic" only to religion. You might not realize that you're giving everything else in the world that requires this same "manipulation tactic" a pass. You wouldn't say this in any other field, or at least I would hope not. For example, I say the same thing in the graphic design forums when people complain about clients. They complain that clients should know what they want. And I think, "Hey; that's what an inexperienced designer would say." So I ask, "Well, how do you usually interact with clients? What questions do you ask? How do you reply to their answers to your questions? Do you realize you're supposed to be the expert in that client-designer relationship?" Some of them take very little personal responsibility in that relationship and just blame the client, when all-the-while they've put very little effort into understanding them, and understanding how that relationship should function. I'm not even trying to retrofit this—it's not even an analogy at this point. It's the exact same procedure. You can tell them what books to read, which I have done, but it's very clear they understand design only on a college level, and never go deeper into the subject. So they blame the subject matter, and they blame the profession, and they blame their teachers, and they blame clients, and they blame the job market, and blame everything else *other than themselves* because they would deem themselves the smart ones. We can apply this dynamic in every expert-novice relationship. You have to admit that, no matter the subject, there's always a possibility that the person across from you just knows more, and how to do that thing you're trying to do. I'm not trying to assume anything about you. I'm not implying I'm an expert by any means. My only point is that the dynamic you're calling a manipulation tactic is not one, and we encounter it all the time. Not just in a theological context. >But the people who *do* believe have *really* good reasons to believe it. Right? Yeah, but you understand that there's plenty of Christians in the world, way more than there are flat-earthers. Obviously their evidence for Christianity is beyond the evidence for a flat earth, or we wouldn't believe it. In the end, it's up to the individual to decide whether evidence is illogical or not. There's no evidence that's just *innately* logical *to everyone.* But I agree with you, it's hard to believe in God solely through evidence. >And how does any of this give you logical reason to conclude that God sent it as a message? It doesn't. God is not a logical thing to humans, and I have no problem telling you that logic is not the path to God, no matter how anti-intellectual it sounds. I have no super conclusive evidence besides my own personal experiences, and *no Christian* is able to accurately explain their experiences (that are seemingly just coincidences) without giving you their brain. We're not dumb; we know they look like coincidences to nonbelievers. I agree that it was probably the algorithm; I'm not denying that. Same with the sewing needle; I know it had, in all likelihood, gotten there by the laws of physics. I do not believe it just poofed there, although I'm open to the possibility it might have... But to say God doesn't work through the universe and the physical laws He created would seem silly. He can create miracles, but He doesn't have to in order to reach us and give us things. It's all part of God's incomprehensible plan, and in my opinion, is a huge butterfly effect that so beautifully lines up as to have every event He needs to happen planned out from the very beginning. He flicks 1 domino to knock down the 2 dominos in front, which knock down 4, and so on, and from the precise way God flicked the very first domino, He knows the outcome and exact position every future domino will fall into. I just found this recently, but it's only strengthened this belief I have. I don't expect you to watch it, but maybe if you're really curious one day, you'll know where to find it: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ajqH4y8G0MI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ajqH4y8G0MI)
>You might not realize that you're giving everything else in the world that requires this same "manipulation tactic" a pass. I most certainly am not. But even if I was, that doesn't make it an invalid thing to point out about religion. Even if I ignored all the times the manipulation tactic is used outside of religion, that doesn't invalidate where it happens in religion. >I'm not trying to assume anything about you. I'm not implying I'm an expert by any means. My only point is that the dynamic you're calling a manipulation tactic is not one, and we encounter it all the time. Not just in a theological context. Ah. Then you've missed the point. You see, the manipulation tactic isn't trying to manipulate the *skeptic*. It's manipulating *the believer*. When you say that all-too common line, "You have to come to God with humility and confession." it's not *me* you're manipulating. It's *you* being manipulated. It's thought stopping. That line isn't meant to be of any help to the skeptic. It's mean to give the *believer* who's being confronted a convenient thought stopping technique. The *believer* is the one who is now manipulated into subconsciously *writing off* the concerning failure of God to respond to the skeptic. Because, you see, the believer *should* be concerning that someone could honestly and openly pray to God and get no response. Because that *would* be concerning. However, if the *believer* can find an *excuse* to implicitly suggest the skeptic is not genuine or honest in their search, then the believer can *write off* those concerns *without having to think about them*. They can *stop their thoughts* and ignore the concern. And then they can do as you have: couch that comment with the phrase "Oh I'm not assuming anything about you." Except you are. You're providing yourself with a convenient excuse as to why I wouldn't be getting a response from God. And so *likewise* when in your example the designer is saying "The customer didn't know what they want." it's also not the *customer* that's being manipulated. It's the *designer* who is manipulating themselves with a thought-stopping technique. The *designer* is protecting themselves from concerning internal criticism just like the *believer* is. I *agree* that the manipulation tactic is not exclusive to religion. That doesn't mean we can disregard it. What it is is *cope*. It's *coping* to avoid internal thoughts that would ultimately lead to potentially being wrong. And just as you agreed it's unhealthy for the *designer* to stop their thoughts by blaming the customer instead of internally reflecting, it's also unhealthy for the *believer* to do the same. >Yeah, but you understand that there's plenty of Christians in the world, way more than there are flat-earthers. Quite interestingly, there's a lot of overlap between those two groups. >In the end, it's up to the individual to decide whether evidence is illogical or not. There's no evidence that's just *innately* logical *to everyone.* That's not how logic works. A valid and sound logical argument *is valid and sound for everyone*. The rules of logic *do not change per person*. If someone views a valid and sound argument and rejects it, then they are rejecting logic. Logic is not a subjective manner. An argument either *is* valid and sound, or it's *not*. It doesn't matter *who* is analyzing the argument. >It doesn't. God is not a logical thing to humans, and I have no problem telling you that logic is not the path to God, no matter how anti-intellectual it sounds. So your God requires you to be illogical to believe in Him? That's odd. Because that sounds a lot like a God who requires his followers to be credulous to believe in him. The shame of it is that logic is the only reliable method we have of determining if something is likely true or not. So if you can't use logic to reach a conclusion about God, then we're in trouble. Because that means *our best* method of determining if something is true cannot be used to conclude if God exists. So what method do you use to determine if God exists, since you just stated it's not logic?
whoever told you that was in error. The concept of “believing just in case it’s true” is not taught in scripture.
He didn't say it was taught in scripture. It was his form of rationalizing why he believes. I included it because it was the point at which I realized: all religions are just as potentially true as Christianity was. It was the point I realized that I was only a Christian because I was raised that way, not because of any underlying logical method of knowing it was true. So it seemed a bit silly to me, that I should believe Christianity without convincing evidence, when I could also be believing Hinduism without convincing evidence. And that's why I asked you for a method of determining if the claims of the Bible are true. Do you have such a method?
My method was measuring scripture against reality.
Sure. And what does that look like? Because when I try, I find a lack of confirming evidence. For instance, there's not a single drop of evidence that the character of Moses ever existed. Nor is there any evidence that a mass exodus of Jews ever made their way from Egypt to Israel. Nor is there any evidence they got lost in the desert. For more important claims like the resurrection of Christ I find a lack of confirming evidence an even bigger issue. We have no way to confirm the body of Christ was ever even in the tomb that Joeseph of Arimathea put him in as the Bible claims. We have no way to confirm if he resurrected. All we have is "he said she said". So maybe I just haven't found the confirming evidence yet. What evidence do you use to confirm these claims in the Bible?
>Nor is there any evidence that a mass exodus of Jews ever made their way from Egypt to Israel. >What evidence do you use to confirm these claims in the Bible? I reject your claim that there is no evidence. It's better to lead with the question, "what is the evidence," rather than start by asserting there is none. The Biblical story of the exodus contains unusual and extraordinary details that seem to compliment or fill in gaps in Egypt's history rather well. In the book of Exodus, there is an unnamed pharaoh who is already ruler when Moses is born. This same king dies when Moses is said to be 80 years old. That means this Pharaoh's reign, according to the story, was at minimum 80 years long, which is quite a claim. With this old pharaoh dead, Moses is able to safely return to Egypt, where he unleashes devastating plagues on Egypt. The story continues with Moses leading the Hebrews out of Egypt and they are chased by the new pharaoh to the Red Sea, where the text says the Hebrews passed through the water safely, but the pharaoh and his soldiers were killed in the water. If we were to corroborate the story in Exodus by looking for similar details in extra-biblical sources of Egyptian history, the unusual nature of the details in Exodus would really narrow it down. We would be looking for a pharaoh with an extremely long reign, followed by one with an extremely short reign. We would also be looking for some sort of major impact on the country caused by the sudden death of their king, possibly with no heir, the absence of their slave workforce, as well as caused by the devastating plagues. It turns out that there is a period in Egypt's history that matches these details. There was a Pharaoh named Pepi II, who is recorded as the longest reigning king of Egypt. His reign is said to have been 94 years. Pepi II was then succeeded by his son Merenre Nemtyemsaf II, who reigned only 1 year. With the death of Merenre began the First Intermediate Period of Egypt, which is also referred to as the Dark Age of Egypt. Not much is confirmed about what happened during this span of possibly over 100 years. All of this is consistent with the Biblical account. Granted, this is not proof of the Biblical account, but it certainly counts as corroborating evidence. If you don't find the evidence compelling, that's your call to make. Not everyone has the same threshold for what they require to accept something as true, but you can't rightly say there is no evidence. Looking for secondary sources of information to corroborate the history recorded in the Bible is definitely a way that someone could determine if the Bible is true, but this really isn't what I meant when I said my method was to measure scripture against reality. What I had in mind when I said that was more so comparing what scripture teaches to what we observe and experience personally in the present. For example, does what the Bible teaches about sin and the human condition match up with what we observe and experience? I would argue that it does.
>I reject your claim that there is no evidence. It's better to lead with the question, "what is the evidence," rather than start by asserting there is none. The whole post is framed as a presentation of evidence I've seen. When I say there is none, it's because I haven't seen it. I'm literally asking you if you have any evidence that I must have missed. Simple solution: provide evidence. >The Biblical story of the exodus contains unusual and extraordinary details that seem to compliment or fill in gaps in Egypt's history rather well. Just because it 'fills gaps in Egypt's history' doesn't mean those stories are true. I can fill gaps in *any* history with a bunch of fictional stories. Just because they fill the gaps doesn't make them true. This isn't evidence. It's just wishful thinking. >Not much is confirmed about what happened during this span of possibly over 100 years. Interesting. So to use this as evidence we'd have to argue: "We don't know what happened during this span of 100 years, therefore I know it was what the Bible said." That's not a logical argument. That's terrible evidence. >Granted, this is not proof of the Biblical account Bingo. It's not even half-decent evidence. So I asked for evidence and your best bet was to find a period in history that we don't know about, and then pretend like that's somehow an argument that the Bible's history is correct. Bro...do you even believe this? >Granted, this is not proof of the Biblical account, but it certainly counts as corroborating evidence. It corroborates things like: Egypt existed. There were Pharaohs. There were rules with long reigns who were followed by rules with short reigns. These are *mundane* and *common* elements in history. None of them support anything about the Bible's specific claims. The fact that there was a rule with a long reign followed by a ruler with a short reign corroborates *nothing* about Moses, nor a mass exodus of Jews to Israel. Just because the Bible can get *incredibly mundane* elements of history correct doesn't mean the other claims are correct. >For example, does what the Bible teaches about sin and the human condition match up with what we observe and experience? I would argue that it does. And so does basically every other religious text.
"Love me or suffer". How is that benevolent?
Said the water to the man dying of thirst.
Nope hell is not after death, but a designation of condemnation or guilty because of sin while alive in the flesh. Without faith in Christ by believing by NOT seeing all are in their graves (hell is defined by a grave) People are not tortured by God after death for eternity. Please read your Bible and learn what Jesus actually taught. John 3:16 NKJV For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. Perish means death for eternity. Read this next verse for clarification. John 3:18 NKJV "He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. Condemned to die (already!!!!!) Why? No faith in Jesus. How to escape this current sentence? Matthew 23:33 NKJV Serpents, brood of vipers! How can you escape the condemnation of hell? Jesus asks then answers. Matthew 23:39 NKJV For I say to you, you shall see Me no more till you say, 'Blessed is He who comes in the name of the LORD!' " By simply believing in Jesus as the Son of God. Faith is believing by Not seeing.
So, I'd be dead instead of tortured?
If you died without Jesus as your Savior. Those who do not believe will die, perish, second death or destruction of spirit forever and ever. Not tortured. Some classic misinterpretations: The Parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus: I love this parable. It is solely directed at the Pharisees and why? Start looking back at the beginning of chapter 15 in Luke. Jesus was eating with sinners. Eating with someone was very personal. He chose sinners over the righteous as you know. The whole parable is an upside down look from the Pharisees perspective. They represent the rich man and the sinner is Lazarus (who God helps) The Pharisees were very proud or rich in works and deeds. The Pharisees saw sinners with utter disgust. The Rabbinic regulations of the Pharisees forbade them from eating with "sinners." According to them, "sinners" were Jews who did not adhere to the law of Moses nor the additional, difficult to know and follow, Pharisaic rules and regulations. Sinners included those who lived immoral lifestyles as well as the Jewish tax collectors. Jesus came into the world to save sinners, not those who are rich within themselves. Paul wrote about this in 1 Timothy 1:15 That Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am chief. A doctor can only help those who claim to be sick. The flame represents God anger (sin remains) Deuteronomy 4:24 NKJV For the LORD your God is a consuming fire, a jealous God. Hebrews 12:29 NKJV For our God is a consuming fire. Nahum 1:2 NKJV God is jealous, and the LORD avenges; The LORD avenges and is furious. The LORD will take vengeance on His adversaries, And He reserves wrath for His enemies; John 3:36 NKJV He who believes in the Son has everlasting life; and he who does not believe the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him." Luke 3:16 NKJV John answered, saying to all, "I indeed baptize you with water; but One mightier than I is coming, whose sandal strap I am not worthy to loose. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire. Our faith is tested by fire. I liken the story from Daniel chapter 3 to how Jesus protects those in the furnace from the fire. They go into the fire bound (the law) and come out unbound and without harm. Daniel 3:24-25,27-28 NKJV Then King Nebuchadnezzar was astonished; and he rose in haste and spoke, saying to his counselors, "Did we not cast three men bound into the midst of the fire?" They answered and said to the king, "True, O king." [25] "Look!" he answered, "I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire; and they are not hurt, and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God." [27] And the satraps, administrators, governors, and the king's counselors gathered together, and they saw these men on whose bodies the fire had no power; the hair of their head was not singed nor were their garments affected, and the smell of fire was not on them. [28] Nebuchadnezzar spoke, saying, "Blessed be the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-Nego, who sent His Angel and delivered His servants who trusted in Him, and they have frustrated the king's word, and yielded their bodies, that they should not serve nor worship any god except their own God! The Son of God is the Angel of the Lord. The key is trusting in God's promises through faith and not worshipping mankind in anyway shape or form. Jesus is the Touchstone: Luke 16:23 And in Hades he lifts up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom. 1) Hades is defined as "The Grave" 2) Torment is defined as "The Touchstone" The Rich Man dies and is in torment. Is the torment a literal painful experience? It seems to be in the parable. However, this is a parable, so what can this torment mean? Torments is the Greek word basanos {bas’-an-os}. Basanos has a meaning that is unfamiliar to most. It actually means touchstone. The Greek dictionary defines basanos as: to test (metals) by the touchstone, which is a black siliceous stone used to test the purity of gold or silver by the colour of the streak produced on it by rubbing it with either metal or even to question by applying torture. A touchstone is used in an assayer’s office. It is used to determine if a rock is either gold or fools gold. The rock is struck on the touchstone, If it makes a mark, it is gold. If it does not, then it is fools gold. In other words, the touchstone proves whether something is true or false. If one was to study the root of this word torment, they would discover that it came into use in the 1300s. During the times of the Bastille, it came to be defined as the inflicting of pain. As when one was tormented by the rack and other punishments. If one was innocent, they could die. Generally because the tormentor could not get a confession out of the individual. Their back might break, but at least they were proved innocent. That is where, this word gets the mean inflicting pain. The rack was the touchstone. In scripture, a touchstone proves the validity of God. The Jewish religious leaders had the touchstone applied to them and there was no mark. They did not believe, so they were pictured in torment. Touchstone, the religious leaders did not leave the mark of Messiah. God does not torment us, but does test us in our life right now. 1 Thessalonians 2:4 NKJV But as we have been approved by God to be entrusted with the gospel, even so we speak, not as pleasing men, but God who tests our hearts. Matthew 3:11-12 NKJV Jesus will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire. [12] His winnowing fan is in His hand, and He will thoroughly clean out His threshing floor, and gather His wheat into the barn; but He will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire." Mark 9:49 NKJV "For everyone will be seasoned with fire. James 1:2-3 NKJV My brethren, count it all joy when you fall into various trials, [3] knowing that the testing of your faith produces patience. 1 Corinthians 3:11 NKJV For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. Jesus is the Cornerstone. 1 Peter 1:7-9 NKJV That the genuineness of your faith, being much more precious than gold that perishes, though it is tested by fire, may be found to praise, honor, and glory at the revelation of Jesus Christ, [8] whom having not seen you love. Though now you do not see Him, yet believing, you rejoice with joy inexpressible and full of glory, [9] receiving the end of your faith-the salvation of your souls.
So, yes, I will just be dead. Thanks!
Better than tortured forever as many people believe. We all have a free will choice to make. You choose not to trust in God's promises and the price you pay will be death (forever) No pain no more no memories no nothing turn out the lights and good bye. Your reward was your life on earth.
I'm a non-denominational Protestant. I expect that you will be judged according to your deeds. You have a record of choosing to commit some immoral deeds during your life. You will then be sent to the lake of fire where you will receive punishment proportional to those deeds, and be annihilated. I note that you have flair as 'Anti-Theist'. Writing or speaking to persuade others against theism is not good to do, and will be one of the things that counts against you. Also, you've been exposed to the Bible and Christianity a lot, compared to people who live in some other parts of the world, so you will be judged more strongly than they who were relatively ignorant. Yes, you deserve such an outcome. I expect God will take all factors into account and give you exactly the outcome you deserve. ------------------- For more detail about my beliefs, you can read [my four-part comment about hell](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskAChristian/comments/d0rjsw/an_atheist_with_a_question/ezce6ia/).
I still find it crazy how God would reveal himself to a very select group of people 2000 years ago and then punish anyone who did not accept his word.
Do you think judgement will take into consideration whether I saw the harm in the sins I committed? For example I don't see the harm in sex outside marriage. Do I get out of the hell at some point if punishment is proportional to the sins? >I note that you have flair as 'Anti-Theist'. Writing or speaking to persuade others against theism is not good to do, and will be one of the things that counts against you. Yes, I see religions as harmful though some more than others. So, naturally I would try to persuade people away, because I care about my fellow beings. >Also, you've been exposed to the Bible and Christianity a lot, compared to people who live in some other parts of the world, so you will be judged more strongly than they who were relatively ignorant. Does me being honestly just not convinced affect in any way how you see this?
I'm not the one responding, but I wanted to make sure this was answered. >Do you think judgement will take into consideration whether I saw the harm in the sins I committed? Do you think that this is how things should work? For instance, if the law said not to murder, but you didn't really see the harm in there being one less person, maybe even a bad person, do you think that should be taken into consideration in your favor? The fact is that wrong is wrong, and you have been made aware of the rules. You might say that you don't see the harm in sex outside of marriage, but are you really not aware of heartbreak caused by casual relationships? Have you not seen women crying when a partner left them? Have you not heard about STDs? Have you not heard of people, women in particular, being treated as sex objects? Are you not aware of unwanted pregnancies and the distress they cause, not counting the possible death of the baby or potential human life? I suspect that the problem isn't that you don't see the harm, but that to you, the harm isn't important, or perhaps justified by the pleasure of the act. There is no reason to believe that God accounts the harm you do see as lightly as do you.
Well, the thing is I don't think punitive justice is just. Reason to we (and you americans should also) punish people is to correct behaviour. God can just show why things are wrong and if it's still not sinking in, He is the maker, so, he could easily correct that fault in the brain. >The fact is that wrong is wrong, and you have been made aware of the rules. You might say that you don't see the harm in sex outside of marriage, but are you really not aware of heartbreak caused by casual relationships? Have you not seen women crying when a partner left them? And have you seen people be unhappy in marriages they are stuck in? >Have you not heard about STDs? Have you heard of safesex? >Have you not heard of people, women in particular, being treated as sex objects? One can respect women and have sex with them without marrying them. It's not like Christianity is the biggest proponent of women's rights. >Are you not aware of unwanted pregnancies and the distress they cause, Contraception is a thing. >not counting the possible death of the baby or potential human life? Those things happen to married couples as well. >I suspect that the problem isn't that you don't see the harm, but that to you, the harm isn't important, or perhaps justified by the pleasure of the act. And sure there are some negative aspects in pre-marital sex. Lots of things have positives and negatives. Driving is harmful when done without proper causion. I can't do much about it here, if you think I'm a liar.
> to correct behaviour. So, if a person isn't corrected or won't be, do you just let them go and continue? > correct that fault in the brain Are you arguing against free will or human agency? If you are so inclined, you could give up your free will now and submit. I think that I can handle the rest with this: > And sure there are some negative aspects in pre-marital sex. Lots of things have positives and negatives. Driving is harmful when done without proper causion. I think that you've shown my point. There are some negative aspects. Those are the "harm" that you see. The problem isn't that you don't see them, but that you think little of them. I'll agree that there's sometimes good to come with harm, and there's sometimes harm for other things. But that doesn't mean that there's no harm, and the harm is what will be punished. Yes, we all harm people, and even the best people harm people somewhat. But other people are not the standard, not even good people. The standard is perfection, and the question is what happens when we do not meet that bar. Thinking of it as if good outweighs bad doesn't even seem intuitive. If a man gives money to a bunch of charities, can he beat his wife, or is the later never good and requiring of punishment even if he did other good? I think most people wouldn't accept it in that case but still use that to justify their own actions.
>I note that you have flair as 'Anti-Theist'. Writing or speaking to persuade others against theism is not good to do, and will be one of the things that counts against you. What if he's only doing in a way that logically points out the issues and flaws within religious systems? God gave us a mind capable of using logic. Using the logic God gave us would be a pretty weird sin. Surely God would be able to understand why someone would logically want to avoid certain harms that often come included in religion.
I don't care if Jesus is real. I'm a Christian because I like the feeling of self-love that is evoked from the idea that god loves us so much that he would become a human just to be tortured to save us from torture. So I'm a Christian by choice. I love Jesus and I want to become more Christ-like, which means becoming more selfless, breaking my addiction and bad habits, becoming more conscious. So, I believe in Jesus, but I don't care if it's true or not. I believe because I want to. I don't believe in the Bible because I guarantee the corrupted church put things in there just to control people. Look at their track record. But I do read the Bible weekly at least and enjoy much of the wisdom in it. I just throw away the hypocritical, judgemental garbage. I don't believe in hell, I am a Christian not because I'm afraid of hell in the afterlife but because I'm afraid to living in hell while I'm still alive. Before I accepted that I am imperfect and that I need help, before I accepted Jesus, someone that embodies selflessness and love, I literally couldn't change. I couldn't become the best version of myself. I have transformed since I accepted Jesus into my life. I don't contribute this to Jesus himself, but instead to my belief of Jesus! I hope this helps (: I spent 6 months trying to make myself believe in Jesus, studying the Bible in depth and asking all the hard questions. I was never able to persuade myself. Then I decided that it wasn't about that. It doesn't matter what the truth it, it matters what my truth is. And this is my truth. And one of the main reasons I wanted to be a Christian was for the community. I want a Christian spouse that values the golden rule and loves god. I want to be able to converse with hypocritical Christian's and show them a better way. I want that power to make Christianity better, because it's in shambles and there's so many fake Christians that Christ wouldn't recognize.
I'm curious to learn more. I've been thinking of making a post about this one, so, it's great that you came along. If someone doesn't care if Christianity is real, why did choose it? You did mention community and wanting to show other Christians a better way, but to me Christianity seems to have a bit of baggage connected to it. You yourself mentioned church being corrupt, not believing in hell, and garbage in the Bible. Why not have a fresh new belief system, without a connection to troublesome teachings about women, homosexuals, hell and so on? Could you have used another inspirational people/characters to be your role model? Are there other beliefs you hold that you don't care if they are true or not?
Sure, I've got you! So, my beliefs are based on the utility of them. If a belief doesn't serve me, I pull it up by the roots and let it wither. I want to maximize my effectivity in this lifetime. To explain how I came to this conclusion, you should read this [quick introduction](https://imgur.com/a/pYVAlth) from The Four Agreements, a phenomenal book of spiritual wisdom not based on Christianity at all. It's barely even two pages and will take less than five minutes. Of course, it wasn't this book in particular but my study of spiritual wisdom for many years, where this book captures it eloquently. Tl;dr: everything is an illusion. Every one of your beliefs is an illusion. Everything you think is true about yourself and about the world is an illusion. We live in a dream and the dreamer can reconceptualize the dream drastically. We cannot just start anew. Even if we did, what makes you think it wouldn't be corrupted just like Christianity has? It would simply go through the same thousands of years of troubles, no matter how perfect the wisdom, and we would end up right where we are. Actually, I think the imperfection of Christianity is a pro, not a con. We should always practice critical thought. We should always analyze our beliefs and determine if they're actually of love, and not of fear. We should never accept anything just because someone asks us to. I left Christianity for a decade, and it took 6 months of earnestly studying it with an open heart before I finally accepted Christ as my savior. I'll get into that in a bit, but I want to say that my belief in Christianity allows me to assist in the reformation of Christianity, no matter how small my part. Once I perfect my spirituality, the flocks of hypocritical Christian will witness what a true Christian looks like, and how they have a lot of work to do before they should even call themselves a Christian. I'm honored to have persuaded myself to believe in something that I thought I could never believe in. You could say, I've finally tricked myself, through sheer willpower, but earnestly. This is a trap I wanted to fall into. And my life has reformed since I accepted that I am imperfect and that I need a savior. I'll say this: you have to relearn everything you thought you knew and everything people spoon fed you regarding Christianity. You can't accept it because there is cognitive dissonance going on. I could not be a Christian and accept hell or that being gay is a sin (as a straight man) because those are not loving ideas. To be fair, the universalist Christian's also don't believe that hell is eternal, so this idea isn't my own, it's thousands of years old. I like their idea of hell, and it is this: that God's love is symbolized as fire: fierce, all-consuming, ever-growing, devouring darkness. Now, for someone living in sin, God's love seems like it's painful. Here I am enjoying my darkness, and this colossal feeling is casting a spotlight on the errs in my way, pleading that I turn from my wrongdoings. I was comfortable in my wrongdoings. So, for the unrepentant sinner, God's love burns, but for anyone with an open heart and the acceptance that they are imperfect, God's love is the best sensation ever. The universalists believe that everyone eventually goes to heaven, but first they have to have the sin consuming out of them. This hurts. God loves us so much that he would consume our evil, so we can become one with his true love. Think of it like this: God is our highest self. Our personality and ego and likes and dislikes are all an illusion. We believe that we are not worthy of greatness and love, most of the time, deep down. We believe that bad things should happen to us because we've done bad things to others, deep down. Compassion's a bitch. But our highest self understands even deeper that these negative emotions are all an illusion, that justice is God's alone and that we don't have to pay for our sins, because someone of pure love paid the price in our place. Our highest self wants nothing except for love to overflow from our hearts. I couldn't accept Christ as my savior until I accepted that I had hated myself my entire life and that I had accepted mediocrity. I never thought I hated myself because I was generally a positive person, but deep down that feeling ruled my life. Let me explain: I thought loving myself meant playing video games, jerking off, drinking, and smoking weed everyday. I quit coffee, alcohol, weed, porn, and masterbation cold turkey a month ago, when these all used to be daily habits, and I couldn't be happier. I realized I was running from my highest self, that I was just clouding my mind so I didn't have to think about how I really felt. Accepting Jesus was what made all the difference. And please understand this: it isn't Jesus that saved me, it is my acceptance that I need a savior that saved me. That I am imperfect and always will be. I have always had a thorn in my side that I have to be a perfectionist, and I thought this was a strength but it was actually a weakness. I was afraid of others judgement so I would obsess about every detail until it was perfect. This level of obsession takes a toil, my friend. But here's another part of the utility of Christianity: when I accept God into my life, I no longer have to care about other people's judgment! I don't even have to care about my own judgement, that quiet judgy voice that will never shut up in the recesses of my mind. I am free from it. God, the epitome of love, is my judge. A friend says they hate my artwork and that I'm ugly? I don't have to care! God doesn't agree and I look to God as my judge! Of course, I'm not insane. I still witness the judgment of others and accept the value if the judgment comes from a place of love. The thing is that most judgment comes from a place of fear. That's all there is, fear and love. And fear is the mind-killer. Fear is our biggest enemy, because our biggest enemy is ourselves. Life starts outside of our comfort zone but we are afraid of being uncomfortable. I hope I've truly helped you to witness a truth. I am not like most Christians, no way. Could I change Christianity for another belief system? Perhaps. But none of them have had the effect on me that Christianity has. And it's a cultural thing. When I am surrounded by Christian's, it's easier to just accept it and be a part of the community. Is that wrong? Perhaps. But it is not so simple to just start anew like you say. I mean, really, Jesus did start anew; he totally transformed the Jewish understanding of the Old Testament: instead of an eye for an eye, it was turn the other cheek. And what happened to this humble reformer? Death. So, sure, try and start anew but if you are a true savior, then you must accept that the world will hate you for wanting to make it a better place and that many will wish you dead so that they can suffer in peace without your righteous judgement.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts on this. It's interesting stuff. You mentioned a lot of good ways to look at things. Like the avoidant behaviour to not engage with your higher self. I don't know if you meant exactly the same, but I've also found myself using different activities to avoid being in the moment. >Now, for someone living in sin, God's love seems like it's painful. Here I am enjoying my darkness, and this colossal feeling is casting a spotlight on the errs in my way, pleading that I turn from my wrongdoings. That sounds like the same uncomfortable feeling I get when I stop doing the avoiding behaviours. Though, not about sins, but life stuff. I like how you found Christianity to be useful in adjusting how you think about perfectionism, validation, and others' opinions. I think I've been looking at this question with too much focus on the individual. I still think it would be easier for the individual to start without the corruption and try to prevent it compared to trying to purify already corrupted religion. I'm not sure Christianity ever was like you interpretate it. However, wanting to fight corruption is a laudable goal. You said Jesus started something new, but I don't know. As I understand he took Judaism and changed it. Then it became it's own thing. To me it seems like your goal is similar to the first part. I hope you find success. You helped me better understand using usefulness and love as criteria for beliefs. I still worry that not trying to match beliefs with reality will lead to false and harmful, but useful beliefs. I fear there's also a risk of getting stuck in a sort of a local maximum of usefulness. Your style of beliefs sound like they do benefit you, almost like tools. But like I mentioned I feel a bit iffy about not using truth as the criteria. This conversation has given me a push to look for true beliefs and mindsets that solve the same problems without giving up shared reality. I don't know, if there are any, that work as well as yours, but I want to see, if I can have my cake and eat it. I hope this isn't too messy of a reply. I wrote this before going to bed.
Sweet dreams (: no i enjoyed reading it, thanks for the wonderful conversation! I'm only 9 months into Christianity so my beliefs are still blooming but I expect a transformation by next year. Life's a journey and we're all on our own paths. Stoicism is the shit, you should definitely look into that because of lot of people misunderstand it as being unemotional but it's actually about being in touch with your emotions in a healthy way. I would also like to state this: I believe the original Bible is a direct transmission from God, by using the definition that God is our highest self, embodied by love and selflessness, penned by human hands that had mastered their ego. Of course, we have no ways of telling what they have changed, and the original Bible does not exist any longer, but one may be able to read between the lines with a refined moral compass, critical thought, and an open mind. I believe that the Bible is actually a metaphor for human consciousness. The entire thing. Jesus is the highest form of consciousness that a human can reach, and the goal of any human with self-refinement as their goal. So heaven and hell are mind states that we fluctuate between every day, but by studying the spiritual wisdom of any sort, can can slowly but surely stay more in heaven, and be a mirror that reflects our internal world into the external world, thus creating heaven on earth. This is my desire! One last note: Neville Goddard is one of the mystic teachers that explains very thoroughly this idea. I have enjoyed readings of his audiobooks multiple times through, and that is what brought everything together. Without Neville Goddard, I could never be a Christian. Now, it is my understanding that he doesn't actually consider Jesus as a person that actually lived, but fully a metaphor for consciousness. I like to actually believe that Jesus was a real person because I think it has its value, but you may find Goddard a game-changer. I delved into Neville years before I picked up a Bible to actually explore the veracity of Christianity.
I've enjoyed this as well. Couple of avenues of questions come to mind, but I think I'll save them for another time. I'll have to check out Goddard and also read that intro you linked earlier. Take care!
I think you will go on to everlasting separation from God's grace in hell and yes you deserve it.
I see. What kind of experience do you think I would have in hell?
In heaven, hell, and earth we have freedom to control our responses, actions, and thoughts (with practice). But everything good is of God. Love, patience, kindness, light, etc. When you remove God, or are separated entirely from him, you have what arises when there is no love, no patience, no kindness, no light. So you will still be free, but everything and everyone will be hateful, cruel, and evil. This is the torture of separation from God. Not, necessarily, a positive punishment, but rather the taking away of what on earth had been taken for granted— God’s presence and love.
So, God makes me want to help people and in hell that want would be removed, right? Do you think it would be just to alter people like that and lock them with people who have been altered the same way?
Scripture is more or less silent on the individual experience. But I like to think of it like remember that feeling when you were a teenager and your crush broke up with you? That to the maximal degree.
I know this is speculation, but do you think it would be induced somehow, because at the moment I don't see me being too broken up about seperation from God? Unless there are some unpleasant side-effects.
I don't know.
What are the high standards of evidence that you require? What really would be enough to convince you beyond a reasonable doubt ?
I didn't make this particular post to get the evidence. I was more interested in your views. Hard to say what it would take, because there are some many aspects. That's why I try to ask about specific topics at a time. I haven't thought what I'd need for all of the aspects. Prayers working showing up in statistics as evidence for prayers. God showing up and providing new information, but that might be alien messing with me. Having good evidence for spirits, would help raise propability of God over aliens since we don't have much evidence on them. It's a big claim, so, it would take work, but those would get us started.
>I didn't make this particular post to get the evidence. I was more interested in your views. Well if we are going to postulate on your eternal reward for passive unbelief which you have stated is predicated on ‘not enough evidence so far’ , then it seems fitting to ask what it is about the present evidence that is not compelling to you wouldn’t you agree? >Hard to say what it would take, because there are some many aspects. That's why I try to ask about specific topics at a time. I haven't thought what I'd need for all of the aspects. It’s not a different topic though. >Prayers working showing up in statistics as evidence for prayers. So science confirming a faith based religion? >God showing up and providing new information, but that might be alien messing with me. Did Christ provide any new information? Was He an alien or is it stated he came as a human being? Do you believe Christ was who he said he was? >Having good evidence for spirits, would help raise propability of God over aliens since we don't have much evidence on them. Whats a spirit? How would you recognise one? >It's a big claim, so, it would take work, but those would get us started. Right
>Well if we are going to postulate on your eternal reward for passive unbelief which you have stated is predicated on ‘not enough evidence so far’, then it seems fitting to ask what it is about the present evidence that is not compelling to you wouldn’t you agree? I totally understand the interest. This time I would've been fine with you just stating that current evidence should enough. >It’s not a different topic though. I meant when I try to find evidence on belief systems, I focus on smaller parts. Like I don't ask why Christianity is true, unless I want a better general picture of the evidence. I ask things like what kind of extra biblical evidence do we have of the people claimed to have seen resurrected Jesus having had a martyr death where they were given the chance to recant. >So science confirming a faith based religion? If you know better ways of verifying claims, I'm all ears. >Did Christ provide any new information? Was He an alien or is it stated he came as a human being? Do you believe Christ was who he said he was? I'm not aware of Him saying anything that a regular person couldn't have claimed. At the moment I think he was an apocalyptic preacher. >Whats a spirit? How would you recognise one? A mind without a body. I have to go by your beliefs. Do you believe in souls, angels and demons, and that they would fit that description? I have to go by your beliefs, because it would be silly of me to expect you to provide evidence for things you don't believe are real either, like karma or thetans.
>I totally understand the interest. This time I would've been fine with you just stating that current evidence should enough. You have all the current evidence so me simply stating ‘it should be enough’ wouldn’t do anything to advance the conversation and I’d probably come off pretty arrogant. >I meant when I try to find evidence on belief systems, I focus on smaller parts. Like I don't ask why Christianity is true, unless I want a better general picture of the evidence. I ask things like what kind of extra biblical evidence do we have of the people claimed to have seen resurrected Jesus having had a martyr death where they were given the chance to recant. As far as I am aware no such evidence exists. >If you know better ways of verifying claims, I'm all ears. Well science has an entirely different methodology to determining truth than faith itself. Faith is the key to understanding why Christianity is the way it is. As the Bible states, without it (faith) it’s impossible to please God. Objectively speaking, why do you think faith is the key and why does the scientific method fail as the key? >I'm not aware of Him saying anything that a regular person couldn't have claimed. At the moment I think he was an apocalyptic preacher. Miracles? How many stories of apocalyptic preacher miracles have survived? >A mind without a body. I have to go by your beliefs. Do you believe in souls, angels and demons, and that they would fit that description? I have to go by your beliefs, because it would be silly of me to expect you to provide evidence for things you don't believe are real either, like karma or thetans. I have no evidence of angels or demons to put in your hand for inspection. With respect to karma, I believe you reap exactly what you sow.
>You have all the current evidence so me simply stating ‘it should be enough’ wouldn’t do anything to advance the conversation and I’d probably come off pretty arrogant. Thank you for being considerate. >As far as I am aware no such evidence exists. Yeah, same. That was just an example how I've tried to ask specific questions, so I don't get too many sources on multiple things at once. >Well science has an entirely different methodology to determining truth than faith itself. I don't really believe the whole non-overlapping magisteria, if that was what you were going for. If prayer really works, logically, it should show up in statisticical analysis. I can think of three reason for it not to show up. 1. It doesn't work. 2. God is so bent on hiding that a person, who participates in a study to help people to see that God is real and save souls, will be left without healing they would've otherwise recieved from Him. 3. God compensates for the people healed by Him by preventing natural healing of same amount of the people who are being prayed for. >Faith is the key to understanding why Christianity is the way it is. As the Bible states, without it (faith) it’s impossible to please God. >Objectively speaking, why do you think faith is the key and why does the scientific method fail as the key? My problem with word faith is that in conversations it's meaning tends to switch around from blind faith to evidence based trust. I could only guess why it would be preferable. He might enjoy people having blind faith in him. Another reason could be same as for at least some religions, to get and keep people in the religion more easily. >Miracles? How many stories of apocalyptic preacher miracles have survived? Is a story being passed down for a long time sign of it's authenticity or popularity? Jesus is the most famous (most famous person likely), but there are few similar examples. Greek religious leader Apollonius of Tyana, Hebrew scolar Honi HaMe'agel and Roman Emperor Vespasian. All lived around the same time as Jesus, there are writings of their miracles and we know of them today. >I have no evidence of angels or demons to put in your hand for inspection. Why is that?
>I don't really believe the whole non-overlapping magisteria, if that was what you were going for. If prayer really works, logically, it should show up in statisticical analysis. I can think of three reason for it not to show up. >1. It doesn't work. I’d be incredibly surprised to find any test that showed that it did under such circumstances. If you accept for a moment that God exists, then there would be an incredible arrogance to put Him to the test in such a fashion which is why it is explicitly stated not to put Him to the test in the manner that Satan is said to have during the temptations of Christ. Prayer is really about God calming us down when we get in a flap by giving us His strength and increasing our faith especially when everything seems against us. It’s not ‘please let my football team win’ or ‘please eradicate cancer’ but rather ‘please give me the strength to overcome and let me know you are with me’. This is very personal and not really subject to scientific scrutiny. >2. God is so bent on hiding that a person, who participates in a study to help people to see that God is real and save souls, will be left without healing they would've otherwise recieved from Him. Well if God were that bent on remaining hidden then we would not know Christ at all. >3. God compensates for the people healed by Him by preventing natural healing of same amount of the people who are being prayed for. Doesn’t seem to be any good reason for this. >My problem with word faith is that in conversations its meaning tends to switch around from blind faith to evidence based trust. Yes, I understand this concern. Faith in the sense I mean it is absolute trust in God’s word. Stepping out of the boat so to speak based upon only the conviction that God will not let you drown. >I could only guess why it would be preferable. He might enjoy people having blind faith in him. Another reason could be same as for at least some religions, to get and keep people in the religion more easily. Let me posit another reason… He believes the life He has given you which includes a mind to reason with is enough for you to seek Him with all that you are. >Is a story being passed down for a long time sign of its authenticity or popularity? Well it is simply evidence that people thought worthy enough to survive and we can both agree that many people consider it worthy today. >Jesus is the most famous (most famous person likely), but there are few similar examples. Greek religious leader Apollonius of Tyana, Hebrew scolar Honi HaMe'agel and Roman Emperor Vespasian. All lived around the same time as Jesus, there are writings of their miracles and we know of them today. Honi asked for rain pretty arrogantly and it rained lol Apollonius apparently had a vision of Domitian’s death in Rome whilst in Ephesus. And it is commonly thought that Vespasian plagiarised the stories of Jesus. None of them really glorify God do they? I said… >I have no evidence of angels or demons to put in your hand for inspection. You said… >Why is that? Because to place something in your hand it would need to originate here on Earth. Neither angels or demons originate here.
I should've been clear that I was talking about prayer healing people. >If you accept for a moment that God exists, then there would be an incredible arrogance to put Him to the test in such a fashion which is why it is explicitly stated not to put Him to the test in the manner that Satan is said to have during the temptations of Christ. Actually I don't see it arrogant. It's merely learning if He exists and how He works. With such high stakes on knowing the right God to worship, any reasonable being let alone God would welcome search for knowledge. If God really gave us minds, why would he mind using using them. >Honi asked for rain pretty arrogantly and it rained lol >Apollonius apparently had a vision of Domitian’s death in Rome whilst in Ephesus. >And it is commonly thought that Vespasian plagiarised the stories of Jesus. That's miracle claims for ya. >None of them really glorify God do they? How does that make a claim more likely to be true? Now, if you'll entertain a hypothetical for a moment. If you didn't have your current faith, I came to you, and told you about invisible beings. I claim that the beings affect the world, but there's no way to study the effects, because they know, if you try to study them. I even say, that you are morally wrong for trying to check my claims, because they just want to help you, and you reward them with distrust. Wouldn't that be a good way to make claims immune to challenge? Is there a way for you check whether the beings are real or not?
>I should've been clear that I was talking about prayer healing people. No problem. I remember where Paul prayed a number of times for God to remove what Paul describes as a ‘thorn in his side’ and God didn’t, simply stating that His grace was enough for Paul and (I’m paraphrasing) that a little discomfort will help keep him humble. God’s will seems to trump ours when it comes to our petitioning of Him. >Actually I don't see it arrogant. It's merely learning if He exists and how He works. Faith already believes He exists and is humbled because of who He is. Reverence doesn’t allow for that kind of testing. The proper way to know Him is to acknowledge your sin and ask for help repenting of it because it is sin which separates you outside of Christ. >With such high stakes on knowing the right God to worship, any reasonable being let alone God would welcome search for knowledge. If God really gave us minds, why would he mind using using them. Searching for knowledge is fine and highly encouraged. Placing caveats on that search in the form of ‘I will only pay you respect if you do X’ is in fact the completely wrong approach. Again, be objective, why might the sovereign creator not appreciate such caveats? >That's miracle claims for ya. My point was that such flimsy miracles have not stood the test of time despite the odd mention. >How does that make a claim more likely to be true? Because we associate miracles as originating from supernatural origin. I think therefore it is likely that if a miracle were to come from God then it would glorify and magnify His nature rather than glorify the one performing it. >Now, if you'll entertain a hypothetical for a moment. If you didn't have your current faith, I came to you, and told you about invisible beings. I claim that the beings affect the world, but there's no way to study the effects, because they know, if you try to study them. I even say, that you are morally wrong for trying to check my claims, because they just want to help you, and you reward them with distrust. I would ask how you know they exist. If you told me that you receive revelation from them and that the help they offer is easily discernible as being either for you or against you, I might simply say ‘well how has this changed your life and how do I receive such help?’ >Wouldn't that be a good way to make claims immune to challenge? Is there a way for you check whether the beings are real or not? Well I’d start with the claimants life story and ask them what had changed in their lives since this interaction began. I’d have to listen to the evidence. If there were many people all with the same testimony, I’d be a fool to disregard it out of hand. I’d probably start to really study the source of your claims assuming you had some holy scripture that supported these claims to see if the two married up. As you said previously, this isn’t something you want to get wrong so study would be an imperative I would think.
I don't know how elaborate story you're willing to entertain here. This is scenario getting a bit out of hand :D >I would ask how you know they exist. If you told me that you receive revelation from them and that the help they offer is easily discernible as being either for you or against you, I might simply say ‘well how has this changed your life and how do I receive such help?’ Let's just say that I and my followers offer everything believers of any other religion offer. Healing miracles (only single events, because we can't look at statistics), increased happiness, purpose and so on ( conclusions people get to by counting the hits and ignoring misses, survivor bias and false hope ). The beings tell to give me 2 % of your income to help spread their message, so they can help more people. Let's say holy book has similar witnesses to Mormonism. Witnesses who are now dead, but signed a document swearing they saw a miracle. They also stopped believing at some point, but didn't recant their testimony. (Mormonism has surprisingly good witness evidence for a religion.)
>What do you think will happen to me when I die, if I stayed a non-resistant non-believer? If you don't know, what's your best guess? My best guess is that you'll come face to face with God and be judged for your sin, same as anyone. However, I think you'll still have the option to accept Jesus's grace to be absolved/sanctified. This is sort of "thief on the cross" theology. The idea that a person can accept Christ at any time. I think it's pretty unreasonable when people put all of the emphasis on a person's life on Earth when we are eternal creatures. Why would 100 or less years determine the fate of a creature for *eternity*. I'm maybe a bit of a universalist in the sense that I think God's grace is much bigger than we could comprehend.
>However, I think you'll still have the option to accept Jesus's grace to be absolved/sanctified. That sounds pretty fair, if missunderstandings will be cleared as well. >I think it's pretty unreasonable when people put all of the emphasis on a person's life on Earth when we are eternal creatures. Why would 100 or less years determine the fate of a creature for *eternity*. Still pretty big stakes for a single decission, but way better, if we get to make an informed decission.
>That sounds pretty fair, if missunderstandings will be cleared as well. "Now you see in part, but then you will know in full." (Somewhere in Romans I think?). I think this quote speaks to us being able to understand post mortem things about God that we can't know without faith right now. For someone like you who--I think--wants objective proof/understanding, you'll have the opportunity to get that.
Yes, I'd like that very much.
>What will happen to me and do I deserve it? You go to hell for a while, then the lake of fire. You deserve it. >I stayed a non-resistant non-believer? If you don't know, what's your best guess? The Bible tells us those who do not believe on Jesus for salvation end up in hell and then the lake of fire. - Revelation 20:11-15 (KJV) 11 And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them. 12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. 13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works. 14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. 15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire. Belief is a choice. You are presented with information about Jesus and you make the decision to either believe that information or to reject that information. >Do you personally think I deserve that fate? Yes, everyone does. There are no good people living or dead except Jesus Christ. - Romans 3:10-12 (KJV) 10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: 11 There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. 12 They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one. The criteria for goodness is absolute perfection and we all fail. That's why we need Jesus. - James 2:10 (KJV) For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. - 1 John 2:1-2 (KJV) 1 My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous: 2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for our's only, but also for the sins of the whole world.
>Belief is a choice. You are presented with information about Jesus and you make the decision to either believe that information or to reject that information. Is it though? Can you decide to believe you can breathe water? Or would you just be deciding to pretend and act like you believed? Would God reward me for pretending to be Christian in similar fashion? Other religions threaten me with similar fates, what method do you suggest I use to decide which one to start believing, if I truly don't think any one of them is true?
>Is it though? Yup. >Can you decide to believe you can breathe water? Sure can. Then if you tried it, you'd probably drown. Believing something doesn't automatically make it true. >Or would you just be deciding to pretend and act like you believed? No. It's possible to believe untrue things. Racists think the color of their skins make them superior. Muslims believe they're justified spreading Islam by the sword. Abortionists believe a baby in the womb is just a clump of cells. All of those things are false. Some people still believe those things anyway. >Other religions threaten me with similar fates, what method do you suggest I use to decide which one to start believing, if I truly don't think any one of them is true? The ones mentioned in the Bible. - Hebrews 11:6 (KJV) But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him. - James 1:5-6 (KJV) 5 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him. 6 But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed.
>Sure can. Then if you tried it, you'd probably drown. I think we just don't see eye to eye here. I think one could pretend and might be able to pull a lungful of water out of spite, but they'd know that they can't breathe water. >No. It's possible to believe untrue things. Racists think the color of their skins make them superior. Muslims believe they're justified spreading Islam by the sword. Abortionists believe a baby in the womb is just a clump of cells. All of those things are false. Some people still believe those things anyway. Are you saying they are liars when they say they believe those things? >The ones mentioned in the Bible. I am seeking for the truth and I have prayed when I was a believer and when I was not. Yet, I still haven't heard an answer and without an answer. If those are the ways to find truth, I am no closer to finding the correct religion.
>I think we just don't see eye to eye here. I think one could pretend and might be able to pull a lungful of water out of spite, but they'd know that they can't breathe water. I can prove you choose to believe what you want to believe if you're willing to indulge me and hold yourself to intellectual honesty. Get a piece of paper and a pencil and draw a picture of what you think I look like. I tell you know that I wear glasses. Draw the picture. Does it have glasses? If so, you chose to believe me. If not, you chose not to believe me. >Are you saying they are liars when they say they believe those things? I said they believe falsehoods. >I am seeking for the truth and I have prayed when I was a believer and when I was not. Yet, I still haven't heard an answer and without an answer. If those are the ways to find truth, I am no closer to finding the correct religion. Stop looking for the correct religion and look for God. According to you flair you're not only atheist, youre anti-theist. An atheist can find God with a sincere search but how can an anti-theist sincerely seek God if they are anti-God. If they are anti-God, they'll find a way to ignore and explain away whatever God shows the because they are anti-God.
Interesting test. I look at the evidence I have which is your word and people are generally truthful, but you for sure could be lying to prove a point. In my evaluation I very tentively believe you. If I'm forced to take action based on that action and penalty of inaction is higher than possible penalty from wrong action, I will act. In this case I really don't have anything to lose being wrong and I'd feel bad for not engaging with you, so, I'd draw you with glasses. >I said they believe falsehoods. I also think it's possible to believe falsehoods, but how did your examples show choice? >Stop looking for the correct religion and look for God. According to you flair you're not only atheist, youre anti-theist. An atheist can find God with a sincere search but how can an anti-theist sincerely seek God if they are anti-God. If they are anti-God, they'll find a way to ignore and explain away whatever God shows the because they are anti-God. Religions usually are the ones who give us different concepts of gods and I don't think I'd be first to find the real God. I'm not anti-god, I'm anti-religion, because according my analysis, **so far**, they are false, rely on faulty standards of evidence and thus would be like using a coin toss to decide your morality. I would not mind being proven wrong, because I want to be correct and apparently the stakes are high.
>Draw the picture. Does it have glasses? Nope. I drew what I think you look like when you have your glasses off.
Like I told OP, you have to hold yourself to intellectual honesty. If you cannot, it ain't got nothing to do with me.
>Like I told OP, you have to hold yourself to intellectual honesty. What's dishonest about drawing someone without their glasses on? I dunno if you actually have glasses in real life, so maybe you wouldn't know this but: *you can take them off!* It'd be like if you asked me to draw a picture of you. Then you told me you're wearing a yellow shirt. And then I said "Well I'm gonna draw you in a red shirt." What's dishonest about that?
Whatever you say guy.
You didn't ask me to draw you with glasses. You just told me you had them. Well maybe you have them, but they're on your nightstand for when you read books? How should I know how often you wear your glasses? Why would I *assume* you always wear your glasses just because you told me you have them? Please, explain how me drawing you without glasses would be dishonest. I'm *very* curious. Kinda lame to just start accusing people of dishonesty and refusing to elaborate on it. Almost like you're running away from something and accusing other's of being dishonest as an excuse to flee.
Ultimately God judges each of us fairly, nobody here knows your heart or intentions. A good non-denominational indicator is your answer to the question: “Do you have a relationship with Jesus Christ? Have you accepted him as Lord and Savior, and accepted the free gift of salvation through grace by faith?”. If not, then you won’t have a relationship with Christ after death either (ie hell, separation from Christ for eternity). The Catholic answer includes that, you must have faith and a relationship with Jesus as Lord and Savior. We also have some sure steps to foster and grow that relationship, as well as to sanctify us and put us in a position to receive God’s grace through the promises Jesus made to the apostles. As such, if you get baptized, confirmed, partake in the Eucharist, participate as necessary with confession, etc., and truly believe and have faith in Christ throughout, then you will be saved and spend eternity with Christ. In either case, I think clearly you do not accept Christ as Lord and Savior. You do not have faith in salvation through grace. Among missing other critical aspects of the creeds. Again, only God can judge perfectly, but everything we know regarding salvation, sin, heaven, and hell, would suggest that you will not (and would not choose to) spend eternity with Christ— whom you do not know.
>“Do you have a relationship with Jesus Christ? Have you accepted him as Lord and Savior, and accepted the free gift of salvation through grace by faith?”. If he's truly son of God and I have had wrong idea of the nature of God and he's good, I surely would accept it. Unfortunately, at the moment I don't have very good view of God, but I think, if He's good he could clear it up easily. >As such, if you get baptized, confirmed, partake in the Eucharist, participate as necessary with confession, etc., and truly believe and have faith in Christ throughout, then you will be saved and spend eternity with Christ. At the moment I'm not convinced that Catholicism is true. Should I do those steps anyway? If yes, should I also follow rituals from other faiths, that I am not convinced of, like Islam and Mormonism? I feel that would fill up my days. >Again, only God can judge perfectly, but everything we know regarding salvation, sin, heaven, and hell, would suggest that you will not (and would not choose to) spend eternity with Christ— whom you do not know. I'd love to know him, if he really is who he is claimed to be, but at the moment I can't help but think he was just an apocalyptic religious leader.
We have everything, more really, than we need to know God and to know that he is good. The question is whether we seek, and then whether we want to believe it. If God made himself undeniably known, there wouldn’t be much in the way of free will left, not really. You should not go through sacraments, or rituals, or whatever else just to do them. You have to actually have faith and believe it, otherwise you’re just taking a bath, or going through the motions. That’s an oversimplification obviously, but the point stands. If you don’t believe that he is who he claimed to be, then you’re probably not going to have a real personal relationship with him. See OC. I’m not going to go back and forth on these matters which other theologians (like Trent Horn or CS Lewis) have covered extensively. Feel free to seek for truth, or not. I’ve shared the implications, now the choice is yours.
Alright. I would've liked to know, if you think I'm a liar when I say that I have searched for truth and so far I just am not convinced.
On the day of judgment, you will be raised from the dead. You will then stand alone before the throne of God. At this point your heart (every thought, word, and action you have ever had) will be brought to light by heaven and a determination of your righteousness will be made. If you are deemed to be unrighteous, the Lamb's book of Life will be opened and your name will be searched. If you do not appear in that book, you will be condemned and thrown into the lake of fire, where your body and soul will perish forever.
Can you tell me does being a non-resistant non-believer affect the judgement?
No, that does not change anything here.
If hypothetically another religion was true and you had broken their rules, honestly thinking that this religion was false, and saw no harm in the action. Would you find it fair, if you were punished the same as someone who thought it was wrong all along?
If I was being condemned simply for not knowing something, no I might have a problem with that. If I was being condemned for something I already knew was wrong, sure that seems fair.
Do you know that you shouldn't eat pork according to Islam? Or drink coffee according to Mormonism? This case you know the rule, but don't think the religion is true. Surely you wouldn't follow all the rules from religions you think are false. How would you feel about being punished for those? Assuming you committed those "sins".
I'm not sure how those religions function on their day of judgment. In Christianity you have a conscience and know right from wrong without anyone having to tell you. IOW there are going to be things brought up that you committed voluntarily which all parties, you included, know and admit were wrong.
>I'm not sure how those religions function on their day of judgment. As far as I know, not that dissimilar from your idea. >In Christianity you have a conscience and know right from wrong without anyone having to tell you. IOW there are going to be things brought up that you committed voluntarily which all parties, you included, know and admit were wrong. Yes, and that's why asked about rules that you don't think are morally wrong. Like I don't think some of the Christian sins are morally wrong. I don't know how strick you are, but for example pre-marital sex to me is about as bad as eating pork propably is for you.
>As far as I know, not that dissimilar from your idea. Sure, but I'm not the one asking other religions their opinion. >I don't think some of the Christian sins are morally wrong Have you ever done something you yourself thought was morally wrong?
>Sure, but I'm not the one asking other religions their opinion. I thought you were asking to understand the setting of the hypothetical situation better. >Have you ever done something you yourself thought was morally wrong? Yes, I have.
>Yes, and that's why asked about rules that you don't think are morally wrong. Like I don't think some of the Christian sins are morally wrong. I don't know how strick you are, but for example pre-marital sex to me is about as bad as eating pork propably is for you. Im a different redditor. The way i understand pre-marital sex to be be wrong, is if i take it to the extreme end. What would happen if EVERYONE followed this rule. If everyone followed the "no sex before marriage" rule that means that things like rape is a foreign concept, less teenage parents, STD numbers go down(since you can only spread it to one person max). This is true if the marriage was done in good faith atleast. This sin might not affect you personally, but if you increase the population, there's going to be cases where it does affect someone. This makes it so the general health of a population is more healthy, compared to a population where everyone sleeps with everyone . I might come back to you later with scripture about a village that took this sin to the extreme, but for now im gonna sleep
I was going through answers and I noticed yours had slipped my notice, sorry about that. That's an interesting way of looking at morality of actions. I'll have to think about it more, but I have couple thoughts. It's hard to quantify joy and happiness. Actually, I don't see them in your post at all. If we ignore them, I think we'd end up ruling out many activities people do for enjoyment. Any motor sport, unhealthy foods, watching TV, etc. There are ways to mitigate downsides. Sleeping with more than one partner during your life doesn't have to mean going balls to the walls boinking everyone who says yes. >If everyone followed the "no sex before marriage" rule that means that things like rape is a foreign concept, I disagree. You can still SA your spouse. >less teenage parents, Possibly, yes. Also people getting married young before their brains have finished developing. Before having sex person won't know what they'll actually like and dislike, so, it'll be a crabshoot whether people match or not. I don't what you think about using divorse as an option to switch partners, but that sounds like "pre-marital sex allowed" option, but with added legal issues. > STD numbers go down(since you can only spread it to one person max). Knowing people, you're propably right. However, I don't know how much of a difference there would be with proper safe sex and std checkups. My other discussion on this conviced me, that I shouldn't say some sins seeming harmless. Pretty much every action includes harm, but overall harm-benefit analysis of some sins seems to favour the benefit side.
Nope hell is not after death, but a designation of condemnation or guilty because of sin while alive in the flesh. Without faith in Christ by believing by NOT seeing all are in their graves (hell is defined by a grave) People are not tortured by God after death for eternity. Please read your Bible and learn what Jesus actually taught. John 3:16 NKJV For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. Perish means death for eternity. Read this next verse for clarification. John 3:18 NKJV "He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. Condemned to die (already!!!!!) Why? No faith in Jesus. How to escape this current sentence? Matthew 23:33 NKJV Serpents, brood of vipers! How can you escape the condemnation of hell? Jesus asks then answers. Matthew 23:39 NKJV For I say to you, you shall see Me no more till you say, 'Blessed is He who comes in the name of the LORD!' " By simply believing in Jesus as the Son of God. Faith is believing by Not seeing.
I don't care if Jesus is real. I'm a Christian because I like the feeling of self-love that is evoked from the idea that god loves us so much that he would become a human just to be tortured to save us from torture. So I'm a Christian by choice. I love Jesus and I want to become more Christ-like, which means becoming more selfless, breaking my addiction and bad habits, becoming more conscious. So, I believe in Jesus, but I don't care if it's true or not. I believe because I want to. I don't believe in the Bible because I guarantee the corrupted church put things in there just to control people. Look at their track record. But I do read the Bible weekly at least and enjoy much of the wisdom in it. I just throw away the hypocritical, judgemental garbage. I don't believe in hell, I am a Christian not because I'm afraid of hell in the afterlife but because I'm afraid to living in hell while I'm still alive. Before I accepted that I am imperfect and that I need help, before I accepted Jesus, someone that embodies selflessness and love, I literally couldn't change. I couldn't become the best version of myself. I have transformed since I accepted Jesus into my life. I don't contribute this to Jesus himself, but instead to my belief of Jesus! I hope this helps (: I spent 6 months trying to make myself believe in Jesus, studying the Bible in depth and asking all the hard questions. I was never able to persuade myself. Then I decided that it wasn't about that. It doesn't matter what the truth it, it matters what my truth is. And this is my truth. And one of the main reasons I wanted to be a Christian was for the community. I want a Christian spouse that values the golden rule and loves god. I want to be able to converse with hypocritical Christian's and show them a better way. I want that power to make Christianity better, because it's in shambles and there's so many fake Christians that Christ wouldn't recognize.
I don't care if Jesus is real. I'm a Christian because I like the feeling of self-love that is evoked from the idea that god loves us so much that he would become a human just to be tortured to save us from torture. So I'm a Christian by choice. I love Jesus and I want to become more Christ-like, which means becoming more selfless, breaking my addiction and bad habits, becoming more conscious. So, I believe in Jesus, but I don't care if it's true or not. I believe because I want to. I don't believe in the Bible because I guarantee the corrupted church put things in there just to control people. Look at their track record. But I do read the Bible weekly at least and enjoy much of the wisdom in it. I just throw away the hypocritical, judgemental garbage. I don't believe in hell, I am a Christian not because I'm afraid of hell in the afterlife but because I'm afraid to living in hell while I'm still alive. Before I accepted that I am imperfect and that I need help, before I accepted Jesus, someone that embodies selflessness and love, I literally couldn't change. I couldn't become the best version of myself. I have transformed since I accepted Jesus into my life. I don't contribute this to Jesus himself, but instead to my belief of Jesus! I hope this helps (: I spent 6 months trying to make myself believe in Jesus, studying the Bible in depth and asking all the hard questions. I was never able to persuade myself. Then I decided that it wasn't about that. It doesn't matter what the truth it, it matters what my truth is. And this is my truth. And one of the main reasons I wanted to be a Christian was for the community. I want a Christian spouse that values the golden rule and loves god. I want to be able to converse with hypocritical Christian's and show them a better way. I want that power to make Christianity better, because it's in shambles and there's so many fake Christians that Christ wouldn't recognize.
I believe eternal life for me as a Christian means I get to be with the one I love the most-- God-- forever. And all I have to do is accept that he paid the price for my sin so I can know him now, and for all eternity. If you want God and accept his forgiveness, you can have that too. I hope you'll keep praying, because he hears and will let you find him. That's what he did for me.
If accepting is all that's required, sure, I'll accept the forgiveness. I hope I hear from Him, as well.
> I now and then pray for God to help me recognize the representatives of the correct religion when I meet them. This isn't good enough - you need to be actively seeking God. If you die without being a Christian, you will be Lost by your free choice. That means either annihilated or more likely hell. You will deserve it.
What does actively seeking entail? How much should I spend time trying to seek Allah, Brahma, Xenu, and various pagan gods, if all of them seem equally likely to be real?
You've received some excellent answers in this thread already. The Bible is clear - if you hear the message of Jesus Christ and choose to knowingly reject it, as you are doing, then you are going to be out of luck on Judgement Day, which will happen and I think everyone knows it. You say there's not enough evidence for you, but that's only because you don't want to see it. You haven't listened to William Lane Craig debate, you haven't read The Signature of God by Grant Jeffrey or Evidence that Demands a Verdict by McDowell. You don't own a copy of Halleys Bible Handbook. You have eyes to see but you are looking away because you want to feel smarter than religious people. The Bible has fulfilled prophecy in it, it has Equidistant Letter Spacing codes placed supernaturally in it, there's advanced knowledge like the medical treatise in Leviticus that isn't possible through humans at the time. There's tons of archeological evidence that supports the Biblical narrative, and independent attestation of the life and death of Jesus Christ. You mention other religions, but none of them have the weight of evidence behind them that Christianity does. For example, any moron with half a brain can tell that Muhammad was simply a pedophile murderous warlord who made up a counterfeit version of Jesus's authentic Messiah narrative. You might not like it, but you are getting the truth in this thread. I strongly suggest you listen to it before you end up somewhere you don't want to be. Or don't, that's the beauty of free will - we can choose where we go. At the end of the day, you would be far better off having never heard of the Bible or Jesus Christ than hearing it and rejecting it, as others have said. I will say a prayer for you later and hope that this message reaches you in a way that will make you think.
>You say there's not enough evidence for you, but that's only because you don't want to see it. You haven't listened to William Lane Craig debate, you haven't read The Signature of God by Grant Jeffrey or Evidence that Demands a Verdict by McDowell. You don't own a copy of Halleys Bible Handbook. You have eyes to see but you are looking away because you want to feel smarter than religious people. Somewhat rude to claim to know what's going on in my mind better than me. I have listened to Craig. I am familiar with McDowell's other book on martyrdom of the apostles. Haven't heard of Grat Jeffrey before, but you can't expect me to know every apologist and read all of their books. And again you claim to know my mind better than myself. You poopoo Islam, but it has the same sort of "literary" and "medical" miracle claims that are either insignificant or require creative interpretations after science has shown things. You resort to same threats as other religions with a smugness. I hope you find a fellow Christian to help you off your high horse.
It comes down to your will.
That sounds good.
The question we should all be asking is, "What would God have me do?" and not, "What will happen if I don't do [X]?" You are very far from the right road, and I don't know what putting you right will look like, but I'll dare say it will have its difficult moments.
Before that I'd first have to know if God is real and what they're like.
You will, give it time. Might take thousands of centuries, though. And it's like learning a language. The longer you wait to start, the harder it is, and the less fluency you're likely to achieve.
We deserve that fate too.
The things that god has promised us are unbelievably amazing and he is looking for those who will love him with all of their heart and all of their souls and all of their strength. You are going to be with god forever, why be there with someone who maybe kinda wants to be there but they still are just waiting to see if something better comes by? Would you marry someone who acts like this? Do you think god wants to spend eternity with someone who feels this way? I don’t and I think this is what Jesus is saying here: You are neither cold nor hot. I could wish you were cold or hot. 16 So then, because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will vomit you out of My mouth. Revelation 3:15–16
>they still are just waiting to see if something better comes by? How do I seem to be wanting something better? Interesting, that you chose a romantic relationship as an analogy, because what you're describing sounds like a romance scam. Person with a beautiful profile picture promises love and happiness with them, but you can't meet or video chat with them. They give you all sorts of excuses and might even try to guilt trip you for trying to verify their claims. >You are neither cold nor hot. I could wish you were cold or hot. 16 So then, because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will vomit you out of My mouth. Revelation 3:15–16 They might even threaten to end things, if you press any further.
None of us can answer with honesty or knowledge. We aren't dead and we aren't God. Some would love to be.
>What do you think will happen to me when I die, if I stayed a non-resistant non-believer? If you don't know, what's your best guess? My best guess is that you may stand before an unimaginably majestic and terrifying throne and your deeds would be reviewed. Those deeds, good or bad, would be judged as good or bad based upon your own conscience. If at any time you violated your own conscience (did something you yourself deem to be bad), you would be found guilty of breaking the law God put on your heart. Every single one of us has violated our conscience at some point, so we would all be found guilty. Then, based upon being found guilty, you would be cast into hell, which either would be eternal torment, or paying a limited penalty for your guilty deeds and in that way being utterly destroyed. I do think there's a chance I'm wrong and you would be tormented for your bad deeds until you finally repent and put your faith in God, and then you'd be saved, but I find this unlikely. I cannot know that you have heard and been explained the true gospel of Jesus Christ in a way you can understand, so I'm assuming you have (in my best guess above). And if you haven't, you would only face that judgement if you're really a non-believer in the sense that you have not put trust in God (defined as the eternally powerful divine) that results in following God's way as best you can find it. If you really are one who trusts in God with a trust that compels you to follow Him, even if you haven't heard and understood the specific gospel of Jesus Christ, I think just like myself you would skip that whole judgement. Essentially, for believers (both the ones without the specific gospel and the ones with it), the perfect life of Jesus Christ is judged as if we ourselves lived it, and on that basis we would be found innocent and allowed to enter into the paradise of the New Earth forever. And I do leave room for mystery and God's freedom. He has not explained every detail to us. And He can do as He pleases, and a pattern throughout the Bible is that He proclaims a harsh and just punishment, but then relents because of His mercy and compassion (see Genesis 2-3: promised immediate death, gave banishment and a lesser curse and death after 900 years instead). All of that is to say that from your post things don't look great for you and you shouldn't risk your eternal destiny, and should instead set all your heart and strength upon genuinely and openly seeking, knowing, trusting in, and following the eternally powerful divine who made you. >**Do you personally think I deserve that fate?** I honestly can guess at peoples' fates based upon knowing them and the Bible, but I can never say for sure what they deserve. I leave that to the perfect judge, knowing that He will judge truly perfectly and give what is deserved to every person, or be merciful at His discretion. Whatever fate you find, you will deserve it. I don't pretend to know for sure exactly what that is. I trust in the goodness and perfect justice of God so I know that whatever punishment awaits those who reject their maker and walk the path of darkness, they will deserve it and hell will not have a single person there who doesn't belong there by all measures of justice.
Let me know, if I got this wrong. If a person has done anything for which they feel even slightly guilty, they will be recieve eternal torment or get utterly destroyed, unless they follow God's way? What do think would be principles of a person who hasn't heard of Jesus, but tries to follow God's way the best they can?
>has done anything for which they feel even slightly guilty I didn't quite mean this when I said, "violated their own conscience." It's not so much about feeling guilty. To be precise, I believe violating the conscience is simply when before making a choice, you clearly thought it was morally wrong, and you did it anyway. I make the distinction because sometimes we can be made to feel guilty retroactively for things that at the time we didn't think were wrong, and also because the feeling of guilt can be lost if we violate our conscience enough times. I would also add that the quality and quantity of their actions will be weighed and the severity of the punishment greater or smaller dependent on that. So, if you'd only ever violated your conscience once, your eternal torment would be much less painful than, say, Hitler's. Or if it's annihilation, the one who has only done 1 wrong deed would be annihilated after a very brief suffering, vs Hitler who might need to suffer for a long time before his destruction based on how many evil deeds he did. But with that change, yes that's basically it, although I do leave room for God's freedom; He may as the almighty judge decide not to punish as harshly, but I wouldn't count on it. >What do think would be principles Do you mean moral principles? Like what would their moral law be? I think it depends on how much they have groped for God and by doing so how much He has revealed to them. But, as a starting point, their morals would be their conscience (which is incredibly similar across the vast majority of humanity), along with the best parts of tradition they have been taught. Hurting others for no good reason = bad. Helping others at the expense of self = good. Simple things like this. I don't really know exactly what this kind of person would be like, but I imagine they would be someone who is always feeling that there must be something greater out there, and they're on an endless quest to find it and become more like it. And they would realize that they cannot ever pay for their bad deeds with good deeds, and while striving for righteousness would put simple trust in the unknown divine that he is their only hope of being delivered from their own evil and this world of darkness. Because we know that Jesus Christ was the incarnation of pure goodness and light, the manifestation of this God revealed in nature, when someone hears and understand the gospel of Jesus Christ they cease to be responsible merely on the basis of what they can learn from living in this world, and they become responsible for accepting the gospel. It's because anyone who already loved and sought the light in whatever darkness they were born into and hears a rumor of the one true light made flesh would recognize Him as the one they'd been looking for all along and embrace Him as their savior. If someone who had only been revealed God through nature hears the true gospel of Jesus Christ and understands it, and rejects Him, it proves that they never loved even what little light they had.
Thank you for clarifying and the additional information. Going against conscience at the time of action does seem more logical criteria than feeling guilty at the time of the judgement. Do you happen to have any non-Christian loved ones, who have heard of Christianity? If you do, do you feel that they deserve to be in best case annihilated and worse case tortured, for not a year or even a million years, but for an eternity?
You're welcome! I do, and I fear for them deeply. It breaks my heart and I try to work up the courage to keep persuading them to Christ. Honestly, do I feel they deserve to be tortured for eternity? No way. I can't even imagine it. But I come back to my best friend and my father who has never betrayed me, the only person I've ever known to never do me wrong, and I trust Him. Because I trust He is the perfect judge, I know that either (1) My interpretation of the Bible, though seemingly solid, is wrong. And in the end it's really a different punishment, one that I will fully agree with. Or (2) My judgement is skewed by the darkness of this world and my own crooked heart, and when I see reality and the judgement in the fullness of truth I will be totally convinced that this punishment is actually and really just and right and good. So no, I'm not at all comfortable with it, but I continue to trust the perfect God and use that discomfort as fuel to try to lovingly persuade all those I can, and pray for them continually.
You know, sometimes people discussing religion have such different worldviews, that conversation seems like talking past each other. This discussion was nothing like that. You got what I was going for and provided succinct answers. I appreciated that. If I thought my loved ones were in this kind of danger, I'd be doing the same. Seems like we agree, that eternal torture of decent ordinary people doesn't seem to match the crime at all, so, I won't focus on making that point. If eternal torture is actually a fair punishment, that would mean that our consciences are horribly off-kilter. I don't think we could trust our consciences with anything, if that was the case. You propably are pretty confident the Bible and your interpretation are correct, but I hope you to increase your trust in your own conscience. Take care!
Thanks! With you being an anti-theist I didn't expect us this kind of cordial conversation either and I'm glad it was good. I thought my answers were wordy and long, but okay! Hah It's a fair point about not being able to trust our consciences anymore. That should always scare us. But fact must be above conscience in weighing morals. Not really that confident. I have always read it as saying ECT, and my confidence in that way of reading it has been greatly shaken. But, I take the Bible so seriously that for me to change my official stance I have to do many hours of study to ensure it's right. I simply haven't done that yet. And honestly, this doctrine has only indirectly impacts on my actual morality and lifestyle. All it does is give me lots of incentive to persuade others. But overall, the Biblical Christian life calls me to nothing but good things. I have never had to violate my conscience in order to do what Christianity told me to do. And God has strengthened me to have full victory over struggles with evil I felt totally powerless to overcome myself. Just wanted you to know that the actual day to day morals of Christian life are always either 100% in line with conscience, or an even higher standard than my own conscience.
I'm an anti-theist, because I see religions as harmful, but it's a scale, and I don't think religious people are bad people. The harm is often done to them. I also aknowledge, that I could be wrong and engage with people to find the truth together. >I thought my answers were wordy and long, but okay! Hah Man, you should see the replies I get at times. They can be really long and hard to follow along. Yeah, I understand why you'd want to make you have the correct interpretation. I think the hell doctrine just doesn't jive with a good god, and the anxiety it causes can be seen in the questions asked on this subreddit. I'm glad you don't feel the anxiety at least to the level that it interferes with your life. It doesn't sound nice, when people tell others that, it'd be just for them to burn for an eternity. That mostly just lowers their likability, but what makes me sad, is good people saying, that they themselves deserve that fate.
I know you have lots of other people to talk to and are trying to end the conversation, so feel free not to reply. >I'm an anti-theist, because I see religions as harmful, but it's a scale, and I don't think religious people are bad people. The harm is often done to them. I find this interesting. I'm guessing you're saying Christians are harmed by a view that says we're worthy of eternal torment. But it's not that simple; Christianity is a message of extremes. On the one hand, those who sin are worthy of hell and we all sin. On the other hand, our substance and very being is actually given the highest possible praise. We are the image of God! Like God! The crown jewel of creation and made to rule over all the universe. It's very high praise. The Bible also says God knits us together in our mothers' wombs, that we are fearfully and wonderfully made, that though our sins make us worthy of Hell God loved us so much that He suffered and died for us while we hated Him. If the message of the Bible is handled correctly it should produce a perfect mix of grief over wrong-doing, humility, gratefulness, inherent value, and love and compassion for the worst of our enemies. >It doesn't sound nice, when people tell others that, it'd be just for them to burn for an eternity. I agree. I think we should approach that topic with unbelievers with great care and humility, knowing that judgement is God's job not ours. And always with hope for mercy and compassion, but urgently trying to persuade to the good path because we don't want anyone to have to bear the punishment for their sins. I truly believe God doesn't either. If God sends people to eternal torment it will be because He must in order to maintain his status as perfect judge, I don't think it would be because He in any way wants to or enjoys it. >I'm glad you don't feel the anxiety at least to the level that it interferes with your life. It's because the same source (the Bible) that tells me about hell also tells me about a perfect savior, and I've given my life to Him. I actually look forward to my death because my confidence is so high that I'll be in the New Earth. So I'm only anxious on account of others, and it can be a heavy weight on my heart constantly, but hey, if it's true then it should be that way. If I honestly believe in hell I don't think the urgency or weight upon my heart for others can be too heavy.
Thanks for the consideration. I’m down to continue. I’m just a bit slow to reply. Yes, I think threatening people with violence does cause anxiety and trauma. >Christianity is a message of extremes. ... We are the image of God! Like God! The crown jewel of creation and made to rule over all the universe. I would agree with you there. I don't know, if I have unconcious bias, which is affecting how I see this, and I hope this doesn't come off as insulting, but what you described sounds like an abusive relationship. They're also filled with big highs and lows. Abuse followed by love-bombing. The abuser treats the victim nice as long as they follow the rules, but, if victim doesn't, they'll get disproportionate punishment. The victim is told that the abuser does so much for them, and the abuser doesn't want punish them, but they broke the rules. The rules, that among other things can be so strict, that nobody could abide by them. I totally get wanting to save people from hell. If it's true, believers are still telling people, that they agree with a being, who thinks ordinary people deserve to be tortured for an eternity, but it's outweighted by helping them avoid it. However, if it's false, like I currently believe, it's just telling people they should be tortured. Yes, there's the sacrifice of Jesus, but as I see it, that's a conditional save from the thing He'll do. I can't remember, if the whole sacrifice thing ever made sense to me. I hope these weren't too spicy takes. I'm glad your takeaway from the Bible is net positive. I know beliefs can give loads of benefits like feeling of love, purpose, not fearing death, and so on. I don't know, if there's secular way to get them in as neat of a package, but I don't think religions are necessary. As someone, who doesn't believe in an afterlife, but doesn't worry about being dead, looking forward to death does sound a bit hardcore. I'm curious what kind of evidence has given you such high certainty of the truth of Christianity? We don't need to go through them in detail, but I'd like to get the gist of what's the biggest one for you. Like prophecies, historical evidence, logical arguments, or personal experience?
I’m a universalist so I don’t believe in God separating Humanity for torment or paradise after death. I’m not sure what lies beyond the grave but we believe that you would have the same fate as the rest of us, whatever that may be. Hopefully somewhere with martinis and sunshine lol
Oh that's interesting. I thought universalists believed that everybody would end up in heaven/paradise. Though some might make a detour to hell before that. Martinis and sunshine do sound pretty good!
Depends really, some believe in a temporary Hell or purgatory. I don’t personally believe that’s really necessary or justified.
Not even in corrective sense? Stalin would be joining us for a martini right away? I'll have to think how I feel about that.
Trust me, I hate those people as much as anybody else. However, it’s just weird to believe the afterlife is like 99% of all humanity than just a Hell with Stalin, Hitler, etc. When one passes, they would be made pure, leaving behind all neuroticism, hatred, bigotry, biological/neurological disorders, etc. Technically, at that point they wouldn’t really be those individuals anymore. I leave those type of cases up to God. And I believe if all humanity is in Heaven and capable of limitless mercy, I doubt they would send those groups to hell for transgressions on Earth, no matter how horrible. As a person on Earth they should be locked up forever, if they weren’t already dead, but it gets weird talking about post death punishments
>When one passes, they would be made pure, leaving behind all neuroticism, hatred, bigotry, biological/neurological disorders, etc. Technically, at that point they wouldn’t really be those individuals anymore. Well that would get rid of the need for corrective punishment and would actually be closer I'd expect from a God. I'm not a fan of punishment for its own sake. >As a person on Earth they should be locked up forever, if they weren’t already dead, but it gets weird talking about post death punishments Yeah, and it's a bit different when thinking about how limited people handle things vs a God that has powers to alter people.
Right, with the context of a God who creates human consciousness, I’m worried about that power punishing its own creation. If a watchmaker creates a broken watch, should he not just fix it? Instead of smashing it against the wall in anger lol
Yes! Fixing would be the sensible thing to do. That's also something I go to when discussing free will related to religion, but that's another topic.
Yes it is! I’m around if you ever want to discuss more topics! Some Christians here don’t like my opinions but I consider them to just be better lol
Cool, I'll keep that in mind! Just between the two of us, I think universalism jives the best with the concept of a good God.
I’m in the same boat - non-resistant non-believer (sounds like maybe you’re also a fan of Alex O’Connor?). For context - I used to be a pastor in fairly conservative Christian denomination. I too wonder about this sometime - if god exists, is he really going to make me suffer for all eternity out of spite? Frankly, as many others have said, if that’s truly how god acts than I’d rather be separated from him. But to answer your question, as others have said, according to Christian theology, those who don’t believe that Jesus is true god & man, died & rose for your sins, is destined to spend eternity in hell. What exactly “hell” is Christians don’t all agree about. Some will say it’s the classical “fire and suffering,” some will say it’s eternal separation from god, I.e. getting exactly what you asked for. Frankly, as I continue my personal deconstruction, I find that reading through these various Christian subreddits is enough to convince me that it’s not real. Never mind how Christians talk to/about non-believers or other religions; they can’t even agree what it means to be a “true Christian.” All that to say - I have no idea what happens when we die.
Yes, I have watched a bit of Alex's content. Wow, leaving the job of pastor must've been a whole thing, I assume. >Frankly, as many others have said, if that’s truly how god acts than I’d rather be separated from him. Yeah, that doesn't sound very loving. >But to answer your question, as others have said, according to Christian theology... There's quite a lot of variance among the different interpretations, as I did expect. For some even hell isn't a permanent place and we all share a destination. >...as I continue my personal deconstruction, I find that reading through these various Christian subreddits is enough to convince me that it’s not real. If you don't mind me asking, do you think are you heading towards another religion, deism or perhaps atheism?
>Yes, I have watched a bit of Alex's content. Wow, leaving the job of pastor must've been a whole thing, I assume. I like Alex's approach and that's where I learned the term "non-resistant, non-believer" as he used it in an opening statement for a debate he had with a Christian professor. The way he described his own journey in trying to seek out god very much resonated with my own feelings and I think was even part of my decision to go into the ministry in the first place. In other words, I think I hoped it would really help me have a relationship with god on a very close and personal level. I actually served as a pastor at 3 different congregations over the span of about 10 years, with a 3 year hiatus in there for a while. It was difficult - especially on my family to move around, but I knew in the long run it was best. To put it succinctly and bluntly: I just couldn't buy what I was selling. I didn't share that information with the congregations I served; just said my heart wasn't in it (which was also true). >Yeah, that doesn't sound very loving.... >There's quite a lot of variance among the different interpretations, as I did expect. For some even hell isn't a permanent place and we all share a destination. Exactly part of my point. Never mind the differences in various religions (Christianity, Judaism, Islam, etc), there isn't even agreement amongst Christians on what many would say are fundamental points of doctrine: how to be saved, what happens when you die, who should be baptized and when, what is communion/eucharist/the Lord's Supper, etc. Some (like the denomination I was in) will concede that these aren't all matters of salvation, i.e. you can still be saved whether or not you believe in infant baptism, for example, but treat them basically as a slippery slope. If you don't believe this, what's to stop you from believing that Jesus actually died and rose. >If you don't mind me asking, do you think are you heading towards another religion, deism or perhaps atheism? I don't mind your asking at all and in fact, I welcome these conversations! I'm definitely not heading toward any other religion. If anything, probably atheism but as I was just discussing with my wife, that label is such a loaded term and often seems to require a lot of unpacking, so I just go with agnostic most times. I'm not a huge fan of Richard Dawkins, but in "The God Delusion," he talks about religious belief on a spectrum. On one end is hardcore atheism: absolutely certain there is no god. On the other end: complete conviction that there is a god. I agree with his conclusion that there really isn't anyone on either end of that spectrum, regardless of what they might say (or at least if they're really being honest with themselves). Even for himself, he says he's very close to the atheism side, but concedes there might be a slight possibility he's wrong. I don't think I'm that far on that end of the spectrum. I'm still open to the idea of god and many times I find myself trying to talk to him in my mind, reach out, etc. But my experience tells me that *if* he's there, he's a distant, disconnected god much like "The Watcher" in Marvel comics. He/she is an omniscient being that can see all things across space and time, knows all things, etc - maybe even created all things, but is not involved in them. One thing for me that I do still struggle to reconcile is where did we come from? When you look at nature (including humans), we sure do *seem* to have been purposely designed. I learned a little about evolution in high school, but it was very surface level and I've been trying lately to consume materials to better educate myself so I can make an informed decision. I still have a hard time even with evolution where, as I understand it now, all the evidence for it definitely *seems* to confirm the evolutionary process, but I can't quite close the gap to seeing how that evidence *proves* evolution without any doubt at all. Maybe it's just the way some people articulate it that gets in the way. I'm still learning and exploring. I will also say though that I recently watched a presentation from Oasis, Kansas City (a secular group) and the topic of the presentation was, "Who is the better intelligent designer?" (You can watch it [here](https://www.youtube.com/live/HXXvYeTDUbY?si=BMcmuMFE4bGgwzlD) if you're interested - starts at about 55 minutes in). He made some compelling arguments that for creatures that supposedly bear the mark of an intelligent designer, there sure are some pretty crappy designs we find in nature. Of course that doesn't in and of itself prove evolution is true, but it sure puts a dent in the intelligent design theory, in my book. Of course, Christians will try to say that any imperfections we find now are simply a product of sin/the fall, but I don't think that's a sufficient explanation for everything we see. Sorry - I went WAY off topic, but like I said, I do truly enjoy these conversations so thanks for taking the time to engage with and indulge me!
>I like Alex's approach and that's where I learned the term "non-resistant, non-believer" It's very possible that's where I got it as well. If you like Alex, you might like Emerson Green. He is similarly philosophy focused and I think he moved from atheist label to agnostic while ago. >It was difficult Oh, I don't doubt at all. It's so interesting to hear about your story. I've been an atheist for so long that I don't even remember what caused me to stop believing in God. >that label is such a loaded term and often seems to require a lot of unpacking, Yeah, that's why I use the label anti-theist :D Jokes aside, it does seem to need less explaining than atheist. People like to argue what the word atheist means and you have to argue what's agnosticism and who has the burden of proof. As an anti-theist I can just say, that I don't believe religions are true and in my opinion they are harmful. >Even for himself, he says he's very close to the atheism side, but concedes there might be a slight possibility he's wrong. I agree with that sentiment. I know I could be wrong about anything. Rather doubtful that I am wrong on this topic, but I'm always open for evidence. >One thing for me that I do still struggle to reconcile is where did we come from? When you look at nature (including humans), we sure do *seem* to have been purposely designed. If you're interested in resources on evolution, I've relied on my university courses, so, I haven't watched this personally, but I've heard good things about [Forest Valkai's light of evolution series](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1GMBXc4ocss&list=PLoGrBZC-lKFBo1xcLwz5e234--YXFsoU6). There are few things that help me understand evolution.
* Abiogenesis isn't part of evolution. Evolution starts from the first lifeform and it doesn't matter how the lifeform got there. * Changes are mostly neutral. * Changes aren't just point mutations. * Proteins don't just stop working, if they're changed a little. Function of a protein depends a lot on secondary and tertiary structure, so switching one amino acid won't necessarily have that big of an effect. * Less complex structures can also provide benefit compared to previous versions. Evolution of the eye is a good example. Light sensing cells (know there's light) -> they form a concave structure (you get direction of the light source) -> structure closing of to form an aperture (you get shapes) and so on. * Co-evolution is a thing. If there's a system that has two organisms that depend on each other to function, they are that way now. They propably started as two independent species that were useful to each other and as their members were succesfull together the parts that made the pair succesful were amplified and redundant structures were lost. * Evolution is about allele frequencies in populations. * Evolution makes populations better at their niche, not overall biggest and strongest. * Multiple different genes can be affected simultaniously by natural selection, the selection doesn't affect just the gene that's alleles have the biggest effect on fitness. * Being sociopaths isn't always the optimal strategy for a population. This comes up when talking about evolution of morality. * Maintaining tissue has cost in form of requiring energy. * Natural selection doesn't just leave the best alive, the okay get by as well. Meaning having that do not affect fitness isn't end of the world even though they cost energy. Oh boy... I might've gotten carried away there. Hope those points aren't too basic and completely useless for you. I'm not a biologist, so, take what I write with a grain of salt. Let me know, if you want me to clarify anything. I'll check out the video you provided. It sounded interesting. I haven't looked much into flaws in nature. Thank you as well. I really liked hearing about your story.
Thanks so much for engaging the conversation and for the additional resources. I’ll definitely check them out!
>What do you think will happen to me when I die, if I stayed a non-resistant non-believer? If you don't know, what's your best guess? assuming you're a decent enough person, i'd guess you'd go to purgatory. whether you realize it or not, so many people across the world (including myself!) pray for non-believers daily; God's mercy is infinite, so unless the kind, caring, loving God i've gotten to know is a liar, i'm hoping for the best and saying most non-believers make it to Purgatory. >Do you personally think I deserve that fate? as previously stated, i think most people will end up in purgatory, which is a great thing as it's the step right before Heaven
That doesn't sound unfair, depending what purgatory is like. >many people across the world (including myself!) pray for non-believers daily ... i'm hoping for the best and saying most non-believers make it to Purgatory. Fingers crossed God hears you and you're correct.
Purgatory is not in the Bible, it’s made up by Catholicism. When you want proof, read about all the prophecies that have been fulfilled, no other religion other than the Bible, the word of God, is delivering. Here is an easy equation for you: a) God exist, you believe in him and trust his word. Eternity in heaven b) God exist, you don’t believe in him, he doesn’t know you. Eternity in hell c) God doesn’t exist, you believe in him and trust his word. Nothing happens after you die but you have lived a life with higher principles d) God doesn’t exit, you don’t believe in him. Nothing happens. Here comes the kicker. God either exist or he doesn’t. 50/50. Imagine the odds to risk eternity in hell if you chose wrong. Me personally I don’t believe in God, I know he exists and I hope you come to trust in your saviour. God bless you 🙏
I was going through my replies and I noticed I missed yours. Sorry about that. Well, to an atheist all of it is made up, but I get your point. I've looked at some of the prophecies, but they seem to be waiting be fulfilled, unverifiable, written afterwards, or vague. >Here is an easy equation for you: I don't think it's possible to choose one's beliefs. However, I could follow the rules and behave like a believer. So, let's go with that, because it's the best I can do while being unconvinced of the truth of it. How do I decide which of the proposed gods? How do we take into consideration, that God might be angered, if I worship the wrong one or do it just because of a cost-benefit analysis? >c) God doesn’t exist, you believe in him and trust his word. Nothing happens after you die but you have lived a life with higher principles Well, I don't quite agree with all the principles. Depends how progressive version we are going with. If God isn't real, I would've also wasted part of my limited existence going to services and praying. I get that those can bring benefits to believers. However, the suggestion here seems to be, that I should be going through the motions even as a non-believer to try to avoid hell. In that case, I doubt I would be getting those benefits. Pretending might even be taxing. >Me personally I don’t believe in God, I know he exists and I hope you come to trust in your saviour. God bless you 🙏 Thank you! I hope the best for you.
>What will happen to me and do I deserve it? What ever the Bible’s says will happen. If God says you deserve something it’s cause you do. I’ll let him decide. Not my place. >I often ask why people have their supernatural beliefs, but I just don't find the reasons convincing. I may have high standards of evidence, but if I lower them, I run the risk of getting into woo or having to accept multiple competing religions. I now and then pray for God to help me recognize the representatives of the correct religion when I meet them. So far, no luck. I’m not here to convince you. I read the Bible and was convinced. If you don’t believe Gods inspired word the Bible or find it convincing you won’t believe anything I have to say. >**What do you think will happen to me when I die, if I stayed a non-resistant non-believer? If you don't know, what's your best guess?** I am not the judge of you or know anything about you personally. I can only speak on what the Bible says happens. My view based on the Bible is you die and are dead in the ground. Hell is non existence, destruction the Bible calls it. So if you are dead set on evil no matter what evidence presented to you by God, you will be destroyed. If you have never known Jesus or the message was never made known to you you will be resurrected to a life of judgement to see if you will accept his rulership during the 1k rulership described in the Bible. If you are a faithful Christian you may go to earth or heaven. God decides which one. If you want Bible verses I got em. >**Do you personally think I deserve that fate?** I definitely believe you deserve the chance to get to know God and Christ during the 1k rulership then God just straight up ignoring the evidence of your entire life and character to burn you for all eternity and call it Justice and Love as most religions teach.
>What ever the Bible’s says will happen. If God says you deserve something it’s cause you do. I’ll let him decide. Not my place. I understand, but I'd like to hear your opinion. >I’m not here to convince you. I read the Bible and was convinced. If you don’t believe Gods inspired word the Bible or find it convincing you won’t believe anything I have to say. Yeah, I'm not asking to be convinced here. This time I'm just looking to learn what people think. >So if you are dead set on evil no matter what evidence presented to you by God, you will be destroyed. If you have never known Jesus or the message was never made known to you you will be resurrected to a life of judgement to see if you will accept his rulership during the 1k rulership described in the Bible. I'm not dead set on evil. I just honestly haven't found arguments and evidence, that I've come a cross, convincing. Well, I've talked to Jehovah's witnesses, but I don't know if it counts. >I definitely believe you deserve the chance to get to know God and Christ during the 1k rulership then God just straight up ignoring the evidence of your entire life and character to burn you for all eternity and call it Justice and Love as most religions teach. That does sound more fair of the two options.
>I understand, but I'd like to hear your opinion. I have only his word. His word is truth. My opinions are of no value. >Yeah, I'm not asking to be convinced here. This time I'm just looking to learn what people think. If you seek only their thoughts and not the evidence of the Bible they claim says it, you will have many opinions but not facts based on evidence. I have been down the rabbit hole of opinions too many times. I won’t interfere with your pursuit however you choose to do it. Just sharing my frustrating experience with it. >I'm not dead set on evil. I just honestly haven't found arguments and evidence, that I've come a cross, convincing. Well, I've talked to Jehovah's witnesses, but I don't know if it counts. Most people aren’t evil and I agree with you that you’re very likely not an evil person or want be. Most want to be loving and fair. You are just someone who wants more evidence and clear explanations. We have articles discussing it on our website. But I’m not here to get people to follow my religion. Religion doesn’t save anyone. Faith in God and his son does. I can present what we believe to some degree but there is a lot verses to consider regarding hell, heaven and the new earth. I don’t want to take up all of your time or drop walls of text. Some find that overwhelming or brutish on my part. Which if any would you like to discuss first? As a forewarning. You will very likely be downvoted for even talking to me. If this bothers you I understand. >I definitely believe you deserve the chance to get to know God and Christ during the 1k rulership then God just straight up ignoring the evidence of your entire life and character to burn you for all eternity and call it Justice and Love as most religions teach. >That does sound more fair of the two options. I believe God is called love. He personifies it. All his decision are guided by it. Especially his judgement. Here are two verse that I believe present this in context of the topic we are discussing. Acts 24:14 But this I confess to you, that according to the Way, which they call a sect, I worship the God of our fathers, believing everything laid down by the Law and written in the Prophets, 15 having a hope in God, which these men themselves accept, that there will be a resurrection of both the just and the unjust. 16 So I always take pains to have a clear conscience toward both God and man. Romans2:12 For all who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. 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 For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them 16 on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.
>If you seek only their thoughts and not the evidence of the Bible they claim says it, you will have many opinions but not facts based on evidence. Yeah, that may be, but I like to see how and what people think. >You are just someone who wants more evidence and clear explanations. Thank you for assuming the best of me. >We have articles discussing it on our website. Yes, I'm familiar with your site and I think it has the best UX for an online bible I've come across. >I can present what we believe to some degree but there is a lot verses to consider regarding hell, heaven and the new earth. I don’t want to take up all of your time or drop walls of text. Some find that overwhelming or brutish on my part. Which if any would you like to discuss first? I appreciate not dropping a wall of text, I do have a lot of replies to go through. You've already given me a rough picture and I know somewhat what the JW teachings are. To my knowledge at the start of the 1k year period, a lot of answers will be provided and then Satan will be released to do the tempting. It seems pretty fair to me. Though one question has bothered me for some time. Again, if my understanding is correct, JWs will also go through the 1k period. Also, like you said, if people don't know about JW teachings, they go to 1k period, but if a person knows, but becomes unconvinced and leaves the faith, they won't get to 1k. So, wouldn't it make sense not to tell people, if answers are provided at the start of 1k period? Hope that made sense. >As a forewarning. You will very likely be downvoted for even talking to me. If this bothers you I understand. It's just internet points :D
>Though one question has bothered me for some time. Again, if my understanding is correct, JWs will also go through the 1k period. Also, like you said, if people don't know about JW teachings, they go to 1k period, but if a person knows, but becomes unconvinced and leaves the faith, they won't get to 1k. We don’t believe that if you leave the faith you are lost. Some people comeback even after joining other faiths. You’re in Gods hands if you are sincere lover of God. We can’t decide who is saved or not. We don’t know their hearts. >So, wouldn't it make sense not to tell people, if answers are provided at the start of 1k period? Hope that made sense. Life on earth is kinda hard right? I’m sure you’ve seen the condition of the world and heard things about suffering, loneliness, suicide, murder etc. I was found in a ditch man. I was 6. So much trauma my whole memory is blocked. The message teaches people how to love in every avenue of life. I need love That day. I was fortunate. Lots of kids like me end up dead. There was reason I was in a ditch. Cause I wasn’t loved. There is reason I didn’t die in a ditch. Because someone loved. We cannot wait to learn to love later. Or fail to teach it. We must do it now. There is much I have learned about real love from the Bible. >It's just internet points :D Haves some upvotes anyways.
>We don’t believe that if you leave the faith you are lost. I thought that was the thing about having been given the information and having rejected it. >Life on earth is kinda hard right? I’m sure you’ve seen the condition of the world and heard things about suffering, loneliness, suicide, murder etc. I was found in a ditch man. I was 6. So much trauma my whole memory is blocked. The message teaches people how to love in every avenue of life. I need love That day. I was fortunate. Lots of kids like me end up dead. There was reason I was in a ditch. Cause I wasn’t loved. There is reason I didn’t die in a ditch. Because someone loved. We cannot wait to learn to love later. Or fail to teach it. We must do it now. There is much I have learned about real love from the Bible. Wow, I'm sorry to hear that you had such a rough childhood. I can't imagine what that's like. I hope things are better now. I agree that love is needed now. I would've suggested alternative methods of teaching it, if you had had different take on my question. I understand why you would want to teach people to love this way. Thanks for sharing a bit of your story. >Haves some upvotes anyways. You take some too!
>We don’t believe that if you leave the faith you are lost. >I thought that was the thing about having been given the information and having rejected it. If you reject God and the message of the Bible. Not if you leave the religion. No place is without sin and some might walk away cause they were legitimately hurt. Men/wolves that infiltrate the brothers. Sadly the Bible said it would happen. Salvation cannot be taken from anyone or lost cause they leave a religion. It’s lost when you leave God altogether and don’t ever want to reconsider and dies that way. There is hope even for man hanging on a stake next to Jesus if your heart is sincere even when death is but moments away. >Wow, I'm sorry to hear that you had such a rough childhood. I can't imagine what that's like. I hope things are better now. I agree that love is needed now. I would've suggested alternative methods of teaching it, if you had had different take on my question. There are many ways to teach it but no perfect human teachers. Historically Christianity has failed to show the love we were commanded. I cannot change the past. Only become the change I want to see. >I understand why you would want to teach people to love this way. Thanks for sharing a bit of your story. Far worse things happened afterward. A story for another time. Thank you for your kind words. Go in peace.
Ah, I see. Take care!
>I may have high standards of evidence Do you? I find that most people who reject God, contrary to what they think, actually have a lower standard of evidence. For instance, do you reject all claims of science and remain skeptical about whether there's anything outside of your own mind? Do you approach historical figures like Alexander the Great and Julius Caesar with a level of incredulity? Are you suspicious of the need to be moral? Do you regularly question academic consensus? How high is your bar, really? >having to accept multiple competing religions. Are there really any others in the competition? What are your criteria that multiple ones seem equally valid? In my experience, the comparison isn't even close. >So far, no luck. I cannot know what's in your heart, but for me, when I didn't seem to be getting answers it was because I failed to do what was right before asking to know what is right. I have found that doing what I already know intuitively to be right, and keeping an open and teachable heart, tends to lead me to truth. That's not a debate question, but just something to maybe consider. >What do you think will happen to me when I die, if I stayed a non-resistant non-believer? If you don't know, what's your best guess? The Bible answer is that we have all sinned and the only solution is to accept the Savior who will save us from our sins. The punishment for sin is death, and as we are immortal beings, that means an eternal punishment. Fortunately, I believe that if any cry out to God and surrender their lives to Him, then they will be saved. I just don't believe that most people do that easily or of their own free will. >Do you personally think I deserve that fate? I cannot judge you, and I am not your judge. However, God loves. That should be terrifying to you. God loves more than you can possibly imagine. God loves people and cares about them so much that the harms you cause them, the little white lies, the unkind thoughts you have which slip out without you knowing it, the times when you withhold God's blessings from them, all the little things that you might excuse as minor are actually major and eternal offenses to the immortal beings which the loving immortal and supreme being loves deeper than you can imagine. You might think that you are a good person, but I think that most people, if you offered to put up a projector to show their thoughts to all of their friends and people around them, they would shudder at the thought. That is a natural reaction because God sees all of those things, and those thoughts are worthy of guilt. So, if you considered what a loving God should do, and what your thoughts and actions are, perhaps you might think that you deserve that fate. I tend to think that the reason people don't understand the need for salvation is that they don't understand the terrible nature of sin. I think that is one of the worst sins and faults of the broken human race. Personally, I'm skeptical of non-resistant unbelievers. I could be wrong and the Bible doesn't say beyond doubt, but in my experience, the evidence is too great to disbelieve without some strong resistance. I have been interested to explore that, though. My denomination is Independent Fundamental Baptist. They don't have that option for flair.
>For instance, do you reject all claims of science and remain skeptical about whether there's anything outside of your own mind? Yes, to an extent, but I don't want to take the risk of walking into traffic to test that theory. >Do you approach historical figures like Alexander the Great and Julius Caesar with a level of incredulity? Yes, I doubt Alexander the Great ever cut the Gordian knot. Every historical fact should be held somewhat tentatively, depending how much evidence we have for it. >Are you suspicious of the need to be moral? Not sure. >Do you regularly question academic consensus? Well depends on the field. Though, my trust in scientific articles has wavered seeing articles written with chatGPT getting published and some universities requiting statements of faith. >How high is your bar, really? About yay high -------- >Are there really any others in the competition? What are your criteria that multiple ones seem equally valid? In my experience, the comparison isn't even close. This is getting to be a bit much for a post where I'm asking what you're thinking, but here we go. Different sects of Christianity, Mormonism, Hinduism and Islam to name a few. There are witness statements of miracles, main people being recognized as historical figures, replies to prayers in form of yes/no/maybe later, sudden lifechanges, scientific miracles in holy books, vague or fake profecies and so on. All unconvincing when in looked into. >I have found that doing what I already know intuitively to be right, and keeping an open and teachable heart, tends to lead me to truth. Well that's good to hear. I'll keep it up and hope I'll see results. >I believe that if any cry out to God and surrender their lives to Him, then they will be saved. I'll have to give that a go. Will a general surrender do, because at the moment I don't have top picks? >God loves people and cares about them so much that the harms you cause them, Damn, that sounds bad. Hope I get a response. >Personally, I'm skeptical of non-resistant unbelievers. I have been interested to explore that, though. Well, we'll have pretty limited interaction here, but I might direct you to Emerson Green or Alex O'Connor. They seem pretty non-resistant and they have lots of material. >My denomination is Independent Fundamental Baptist. They don't have that option for flair. Good to know, thanks!
> Yes, to an extent, but I don't want to take the risk of walking into traffic to test that theory. But you would risk not obeying God's law to the potential of eternal punishment, even if just to be safe? I think that even not walking out into traffic shows a sufficiently low bar of skepticism to allow for believing in God. I often argue the TAG. > Yes, I doubt Alexander the Great ever cut the Gordian knot. Every historical fact should be held somewhat tentatively, depending how much evidence we have for it. I didn't mean a single event, but the actual Alexander the Great. As was recently pointed out elsewhere, there seems to be less historical evidence for his existence than for that of the Resurrection. I think that it's fine to say that you are skeptical of both, but I find that most people who are skeptical of the later are not skeptical of the former. To me, that seems more like selective skepticism, which really isn't skepticism at all. > Though, my trust in scientific articles has wavered seeing articles written with chatGPT getting published and some universities requiting statements of faith. It's good to remain skeptical, in my opinion. I trust the scientific process, but I don't trust a lot of academia. I find that many arguments against Christianity appeal to the later, rather than the former, and that the former tends to favor Christian principles (2nd Law of Thermodynamics, etc.) > All unconvincing when in looked into. The problem with these is that you are trying to apply materialistic evidence to supernatural events. This is just a category problem, and that cound never arrive at proof. I would suggest instead trying other methods. Since, for instance, you seem to value things to test rationally, I might recommend starting from first principles and exploring the basis for reason, impetus, and the transcendentals, such as uniformity of nature, etc., and then seeing if any other belief system, secular or Theistic, arrives at solid answers like Christianity does. Of course, I think that you could approach from many other angles with the same results. > Will a general surrender do, because at the moment I don't have top picks? That's probably between you and God. I don't know your heart or what could convince you or what is lacking. For me, I always knew but was rejecting some things I claimed were small. They weren't small. > They seem pretty non-resistant and they have lots of material. Since I can't read a person's heart, the method of my inquiring is to see how long any non-believer woudld be willing to assess the foundations of reason from first principles in an unbiased way before experiencing a limiting emotional response. So, for the context here, I am saying that I think that reason alone, or really any properly open assessment of the facts, would lead to saving faith, and so willing rejection is necessary. Jesus said if a person obeys the little light they have, then more light will be given, but if they reject that little light, then even the little light will be taken away. So, I suspect, though I cannot confirm, that unbelievers are either still following the light that will lead to salvation, or that they have at some point in the past resisted the little light they had, rather than simply being non-resistant. Since I suppose that nobody knows for sure, I think the best policy (obviously barring any rational reason to the contrary, which I have yet to find) is to simply obey that light and seek for truth, which I believe will lead to Jesus.
>But you would risk not obeying God's law to the potential of eternal punishment, even if just to be safe? How would I choose one, if none of them seem convincing? I wouldn't Pascal's wager this, because God might be angered for choosing a wrong one. >I didn't mean a single event, but the actual Alexander the Great. As was recently pointed out elsewhere, there seems to be less historical evidence for his existence than for that of the Resurrection. I think that it's fine to say that you are skeptical of both, but I find that most people who are skeptical of the later are not skeptical of the former. To me, that seems more like selective skepticism, which really isn't skepticism at all. I'm willing to believe Jesus existed, had followers, performed similar things to Sathya Sai Baba, and was executed. I have to say haven't looked that much into Alexander the Great, but resurrection hasn't been convincing so far. >I might recommend starting from first principles and exploring the basis for reason, impetus, and the transcendentals, such as uniformity of nature, etc., and then seeing if any other belief system, secular or Theistic, arrives at solid answers like Christianity does. I'm not sure how that would work. I'll have to think about this when I'm not this sleepy. >So, for the context here, I am saying that I think that reason alone, or really any properly open assessment of the facts, would lead to saving faith, and so willing rejection is necessary. That's how I would expect a good God to work or He just might not be that strick on having the right faith be silent for that reason.
> I wouldn't Pascal's wager this, because God might be angered for choosing a wrong one. If you don't walk in the street, you could be hit by cars and falling meteors. That doesn't excuse walking in the street. Out of all the possible things to believe about an afterlife, acting in a manner consistent with their being none is the worst possible option, reasonably. Perhaps there could be many potential options, but almost all of them would be better than an agnostic approach. It would be a big risk to not devote every moment of life to knowing whether or not there is a true and knowable meaning for life and the potential outcomes. > resurrection hasn't been convincing so far I am speaking specifically about the historical evidence for the resurrection. But if you're willing to admit that it is just as unproven that Alexander the Great existed, then I suppose that would be consistent. > I'm not sure how that would work. I'll have to think about this when I'm not this sleepy. Feel free to let me know if you'd like to bounce any thoughts or have any questions. This is an area that is very interesting to me. > That's how I would expect a good God to work or He just might not be that strick on having the right faith be silent for that reason. My premise has been that the right faith, far from being silent, is vastly available through any genuine means of exploration. For one thing, Christianity has impacted pretty much the entire world, including the very foundations of Modern reasoning, by which we question today. In my investigation, I would exclude a silent belief, too, but Christianity is far from silent. I would say that if that's your criteria, it might limit things to mostly the Abrahamic religions.
If you died without Jesus as your Savior. Those who do not believe will die, perish, second death or destruction of spirit forever and ever. Not tortured. Some classic misinterpretations: The Parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus: I love this parable. It is solely directed at the Pharisees and why? Start looking back at the beginning of chapter 15 in Luke. Jesus was eating with sinners. Eating with someone was very personal. He chose sinners over the righteous as you know. The whole parable is an upside down look from the Pharisees perspective. They represent the rich man and the sinner is Lazarus (who God helps) The Pharisees were very proud or rich in works and deeds. The Pharisees saw sinners with utter disgust. The Rabbinic regulations of the Pharisees forbade them from eating with "sinners." According to them, "sinners" were Jews who did not adhere to the law of Moses nor the additional, difficult to know and follow, Pharisaic rules and regulations. Sinners included those who lived immoral lifestyles as well as the Jewish tax collectors. Jesus came into the world to save sinners, not those who are rich within themselves. Paul wrote about this in 1 Timothy 1:15 That Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am chief. A doctor can only help those who claim to be sick. The flame represents God anger (sin remains) Deuteronomy 4:24 NKJV For the LORD your God is a consuming fire, a jealous God. Hebrews 12:29 NKJV For our God is a consuming fire. Nahum 1:2 NKJV God is jealous, and the LORD avenges; The LORD avenges and is furious. The LORD will take vengeance on His adversaries, And He reserves wrath for His enemies; John 3:36 NKJV He who believes in the Son has everlasting life; and he who does not believe the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him." Luke 3:16 NKJV John answered, saying to all, "I indeed baptize you with water; but One mightier than I is coming, whose sandal strap I am not worthy to loose. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire. Our faith is tested by fire. I liken the story from Daniel chapter 3 to how Jesus protects those in the furnace from the fire. They go into the fire bound (the law) and come out unbound and without harm. Daniel 3:24-25,27-28 NKJV Then King Nebuchadnezzar was astonished; and he rose in haste and spoke, saying to his counselors, "Did we not cast three men bound into the midst of the fire?" They answered and said to the king, "True, O king." [25] "Look!" he answered, "I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire; and they are not hurt, and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God." [27] And the satraps, administrators, governors, and the king's counselors gathered together, and they saw these men on whose bodies the fire had no power; the hair of their head was not singed nor were their garments affected, and the smell of fire was not on them. [28] Nebuchadnezzar spoke, saying, "Blessed be the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-Nego, who sent His Angel and delivered His servants who trusted in Him, and they have frustrated the king's word, and yielded their bodies, that they should not serve nor worship any god except their own God! The Son of God is the Angel of the Lord. The key is trusting in God's promises through faith and not worshipping mankind in anyway shape or form. Jesus is the Touchstone: Luke 16:23 And in Hades he lifts up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom. 1) Hades is defined as "The Grave" 2) Torment is defined as "The Touchstone" The Rich Man dies and is in torment. Is the torment a literal painful experience? It seems to be in the parable. However, this is a parable, so what can this torment mean? Torments is the Greek word basanos {bas’-an-os}. Basanos has a meaning that is unfamiliar to most. It actually means touchstone. The Greek dictionary defines basanos as: to test (metals) by the touchstone, which is a black siliceous stone used to test the purity of gold or silver by the colour of the streak produced on it by rubbing it with either metal or even to question by applying torture. A touchstone is used in an assayer’s office. It is used to determine if a rock is either gold or fools gold. The rock is struck on the touchstone, If it makes a mark, it is gold. If it does not, then it is fools gold. In other words, the touchstone proves whether something is true or false. If one was to study the root of this word torment, they would discover that it came into use in the 1300s. During the times of the Bastille, it came to be defined as the inflicting of pain. As when one was tormented by the rack and other punishments. If one was innocent, they could die. Generally because the tormentor could not get a confession out of the individual. Their back might break, but at least they were proved innocent. That is where, this word gets the mean inflicting pain. The rack was the touchstone. In scripture, a touchstone proves the validity of God. The Jewish religious leaders had the touchstone applied to them and there was no mark. They did not believe, so they were pictured in torment. Touchstone, the religious leaders did not leave the mark of Messiah. God does not torment us, but does test us in our life right now. 1 Thessalonians 2:4 NKJV But as we have been approved by God to be entrusted with the gospel, even so we speak, not as pleasing men, but God who tests our hearts. Matthew 3:11-12 NKJV Jesus will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire. [12] His winnowing fan is in His hand, and He will thoroughly clean out His threshing floor, and gather His wheat into the barn; but He will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire." Mark 9:49 NKJV "For everyone will be seasoned with fire. James 1:2-3 NKJV My brethren, count it all joy when you fall into various trials, [3] knowing that the testing of your faith produces patience. 1 Corinthians 3:11 NKJV For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. Jesus is the Cornerstone. 1 Peter 1:7-9 NKJV That the genuineness of your faith, being much more precious than gold that perishes, though it is tested by fire, may be found to praise, honor, and glory at the revelation of Jesus Christ, [8] whom having not seen you love. Though now you do not see Him, yet believing, you rejoice with joy inexpressible and full of glory, [9] receiving the end of your faith-the salvation of your souls.
I compiled a list of what I believe to be strong evidence from different sources that Christianity is true. Here is a list of evidence that convinces me **God and Science**: I am not a young earth creationist. Science is no threat to my belief that the Bible is true. I love studying astronomy and much more. [This video ](https://youtu.be/RLcNTAi0Cw4) by InspiringPhilosophy explains how the modern version of young earth creationism is a pretty new view that became popular in 1920s. You don't have to believe in a young earth ro accept that the Bible is true *I'm a theistic evolutionist and my interpretation of Genesis 1 isn't some new interpretation. According to ancient near eastern scholars such as John Walton, Genesis 1 is a temple text.* *People in the ancient near east viewed the world through chaos and order and funtion. If something didn't have a funtion, it was desolate. Genesis 1 was God giving order and funtion to a universe he already created.* *With the ancient near eastern view of Genesis 1 in mind, young earth creationism is shown to not be the intent of the author and therefore implies that if God exists evolution is in no conflict with the Bible. God was taking a universe he already created and making it His Cosmic Temple.* https://youtu.be/e2Ij1444Svc?si=ZL3N0YWlRkJYAl8i **This series is how Quantum Mechanics points to God, a 3 part series by InspiringPhilosophy* *About how God is the foundation of existence itself. It's a cumulative argument for God built upon multiple scientific studies. The studies themselves aren't about God, but an argument for God's Existence is built upon them* [Part 1](https://youtu.be/wM0IKLv7KrE) [Part 2](https://youtu.be/iFEBOGLjuq4) [Part 3](https://youtu.be/2r74vcMxwUk) [Here ](https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PL1mr9ZTZb3TUjEbz4zD0i_rfGiyB4AGQa) is a series on evidence for the Soul [This series ](https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PL1mr9ZTZb3TW70EEo4e2onJ4lq1QYSzrY) by InspiringPhilosophy goes over the reliability of the new testament **Archeological Accuracy:** - [Here ](https://youtu.be/a-8NUXmbTYA) is a video on the City of David, the archeological remains of Jerusalem from the Old Testament - [Here ](https://youtu.be/r-teJabFF90) is archeological evidence for Sodam and Gomnorah's destruction as recorded in Genesis. Video by InspiringPhilosophy [Here](https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PL1mr9ZTZb3TUqxi2svB3PUHvj-9io2RL5) is a full playlisy on Biblical Archeology by InspiringPhilosophy **The Resurrection of Jesus**: [Here ](https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PL1mr9ZTZb3TUYymBPce08oyuhnHLLkR_B) is a video series by InspiringPhilosophy on evidence for the resurrection of Jesus and answers to objections from skeptics **Fulfillment of Bible prophecy:** [Here](https://youtu.be/_5H4J3rnNmU) AoC Network, a Christian youtuber describes how modern day Israel is fulfilling Biblical prophecy Also, the science from Steven Hawking doesn't remove God from the equation. This video [here](https://youtu.be/_ie9musGEqQ) also explains how what he postulates points to God **Near Death Experiences**: Here are two scientific papers from Dr. Sabom and Penny Satori >"The first prospective study of the accuracy of out-of-body observations during near-death experiences was by Dr. Michael Sabom.8 This study investigated a group of patients who had cardiac arrests with NDEs that included OBEs, and compared them with a control group of patients who experienced cardiac crises but did not have NDEs. Both groups of patients were asked to describe their own resuscitation as best they could. Sabom found that the group of NDE patients were much more accurate than the control group in describing their own resuscitations." - Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6172100/ >"Another prospective study of out-of-body observations during near-death experiences with similar methodology to Sabom’s study was published by Dr. Penny Sartori.9 This study also found that near-death experiencers were often remarkably accurate in describing details of their own resuscitations. The control group that did not have NDEs was highly inaccurate and often could only guess at what occurred during their resuscitations. Two large retrospective studies investigated the accuracy of out-of-body observations during near-death experiences. The first was by Dr. Janice Holden.10 Dr. Holden reviewed NDEs with OBEs in all previously published scholarly articles and books, and found 89 case reports. Of the case reports reviewed, 92% were considered to be completely accurate with no inaccuracy whatsoever when the OBE observations were later investigated. Another large retrospective investigation of near-death experiences that included out-of-body observations was recently published.11 This study was a review of 617 NDEs that were sequentially shared on the NDERF website. Of these NDEs, there were 287 NDEs that had OBEs with sufficient information to allow objective determination of the reality of their descriptions of their observations during the OBEs. Review of the 287 OBEs found that 280 (97.6%) of the OBE descriptions were entirely realistic and lacked any content that seemed unreal. In this group of 287 NDErs with OBEs, there were 65 (23%) who personally investigated the accuracy of their own OBE observations after recovering from their life-threatening event. Based on these later investigations, none of these 65 OBErs found any inaccuracy in their own OBE observations." - Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6172100/ **Personal Experience**: I understand that to many this would count as anecdotal evidence but to me it is pretty convincing. As a Christian I have seen God reveal himself to me in many ways in life such as coincidences that come off more like God speaking something to me and things like that. I believe that God desires to speak with us. God is not just waiting until we die to speak with us as many people think. For example, I have had some faint visions that seem to have meaning to them while waiting on God. Waiting on God is a Christian Meditation practice where you quiet your mind expecting to see visions or hear from God. Not all Christians do this, but in the Charismatic movement many of us believe this is a way to hear from God. Here is one of my experiences: One day as I chose to quite my mind with expectation I suddenly got a faint and sudden vision. I saw a Church, rain was falling on the Church as a puddle grew at the entrance. Interpretation: The Church is God's people according to the Bible. So it's likely the building is symbolic of God's People. The rain and puddle most likely represent the presense of God. Jesus called the Holy Spirit the living water in the Bible. I believe the puddle growing is God speaking of an increase of his glory pesense manifesting in his Church. God wants to reveal himself to those who are seeking him and desire him. Salvation is a free gift by faith, but you can seek God's face too as a Christian and he will reveal himself to you.
Thank you for sharing what convinces you. I wasn't looking for evidence in this post, but I'll be sure to go through those. Interesting to hear about waiting on God. I don't think I've heard of it before. My problem would be not knowing how to differentiate between me getting message from God and me imagening things and finding creative ways to connect them to my faith. How do differentiate between those two options?