Mageth

First, it's probable that that episode was invented/included to denigrate Thomas, who was apparently off into gnostic "heresy", by the Gospel writer (that's in John, IIRC, which appears to be at least partly written in response to Gnosticism, and possibly even in response to the Gospel of Thomas, and thus includes a few episodes that make Thomas look rather bad). But that's an aside.

Second, it's always seemed a bit strange that God would make "belief without seeing", belief without evidence, a "good thing". God himself, I assume, does not have that attribute. Surely God doesn't believe anything without seeing it. God doesn't need "faith". So why should he make that a preference, or a requirement, for us, and judge us accordingly?

To be fair? I think that, if there's an afterlife, everyone should be free to make their own choice. You know, everyone's given a selection, and freedom to select. And to change if you grow tired of your choice - variety - even to select annihilation if you wish (even with unlimited variety, eternity will eventually get boring - think about it). The ultimate in fairness, no? We're each autonomous beings; why should one particular autonomous God being, just because he's "mightier" than us, judge us and determine our fate?

You're worried about the "evil" ones like Hitler? Give him a choice of annihilation or a not unpleasant, but solitary, existence, or something along those lines. Not even Hitler deserves eternal punishment. In any case, the God you describe doesn't sound like he should be in the "punishing" business anyway - particularly not infinite punishment for finite "sins".

Of course, it doesn't matter what I think is fair. Only God gets a say, right? And that's, well, "fair", apparently.

That depends on what the options are. If heaven would be much better than the alternative, then sure. Even if the alternatives weren't that bad, I still might prefer to be in God's presence. He might turn out to be not such a bad guy after all.

I think you need to define "fair" - it's unclear to me what you mean by that.

I did for the first 45 years of my life, and I didn't find him. In fact, my seeking led me to the conclusion that he doesn't exist.

Yet, surely you know some sterling people that don't love him, may not even believe in him, and don't "follow His word" (except for the "be good" parts). You mentioned Gandhi, for example. And those people, according to you, will probably have a suboptimal eternity of some sort.

And you also say that none of us can be sure of our beliefs, so much so that we shouldn't even judge beliefs. And yet, apparently, we'll be judged, at least partly, on our beliefs (to the point that if we don't believe the right thing, we're booted out of heaven). That screams out "cognitive dissonance" to me.

Yahzi

No, he thinks it should be better.

Atheists that are moral are moral because they are moral. Not out of desire for heaven, fear of hell, or even simple obedience, but because they have consciously chosen to do the right thing for no other reason than it is the right thing.

If there is a God, he love atheists best. Because his love is infinite, he probably even loves the losers who had to be bribed or threatend into behaving with some modicum of decency: but surely he loves those who chose righteousness for its own sake best. Surely he loves his children who grew up and stood on their own two feet best. Surely he loves most those who used what he gave them - their minds - the best of their ability.

If God's love is infinite, and the afterlife is infinite, then yes. Face it, in one hundred billion billion billion years, even Hitler's crimes will be hard to remember. And if Hitler spends any appreciable fraction of that repenting and apologizing, well, what harm is done? Do you think even the Jews he tortured to death can stay mad at him forever? Once we are all paryting in the perfect afterlife, how could any insult we recieved on Earth still matter?

Once God makes everything right - and remember, the express reason God does not fix things this very instant is because he is going to fix them later so well that it doesn't matter that he didn't fix them now - once God fixes everything, then what reason is there to be angry?

Either Heaven is perfect bliss, or it is not. Pick one. Hint: perfect bliss and eternal resentment are not compatible options.

What about the people who sought him and did not find him? What about the fact that your search is indistinguishable from a Muslim's search, and yet you have found totally different Hims?

The only way your position makes any sense is if God loves atheists best. Yet you do not aspire to be an atheist. Indeed, you do not even look with admiration at the atheist. Instead, you take your weak, crippled state as the goal, as if God's entire purpose in giving us brains and free will and the ability to provide for ourselves, make our own judgements, and in general live as independent entities, was just so that we could reject them at every oppourtunity.

We understand you can't make it on your own. We understand God is going to help you. But that doesn't make you morally superior to us. Quite the reverse, actually.

Mageth

I didn't say this, but it's a very good point and I wish I would have. (And that goes for the rest of the post, too.)

If God wants us to be "more like Jesus", then the person who is most like Jesus is the one who is "good" just because it's right to be good, and not due to any law, requirement, threat, reward, future judgment, or effort to live up to someone else's example. And note that, as I pointed out above, Jesus didn't require "faith" or "belief without seeing".

Faith

And you believe people like me are unable to be "good" simply because it's the "right" thing to do? That I am strictly motivated by the promise of eternal reward? You couldn't be more wrong.


I can't agree with that statement either.


Fair enough. Though I never claimed my beliefs made me morally superior to anyone.

Mageth

In all fairness, I did not say that, nor do I believe it, nor did I mean to imply it. Forgive me if I gave you that impression. So I probably could be more wrong. (Admittedly, I did express agreement with what Yahzi posted, but if part of what Yahzi posted implies that I believe what you are saying I believe, I don't agree with that part of it. Confusing enough?)


Again, that seems to conflict with the belief that people that do not "believe" as you do (i.e. do not believe in God) will be judged unworthy to be allowed into heaven. That stance seems to put a pretty high "moral" value on believing in God, at least from my perspective.

trendkill

I wouldn't say so; I would call these people "early Christians", not "true Christians". A true Christian would be someone who conforms to the true mandate of God (where the reality is that God exists as described in some form of Christianity). Since I'm an atheist, I don't believe reality is such that there can exist a true Christian. Obviously, Anglicans and fundamentalists would both disagree with me on this; as you point out, their ideas of what constitutes a true Christian will differ from each others'. When I was a Mormon, I believed that both of these groups were Christian in name only and that the only true Christians belonged to the LDS Church. Now, however, there is no objective standard for me to judge Christianity by other than a person's claim to being a follower of someone called Jesus Christ.

miata

We are not going to change anyone's mind here but the debate has been helpful for me to see both sides of the issue. I hope we can keep it going as this is the most civil debate on the web. The answer to all problems is there is no answer to all problems and this is not in the Bible. It is as true as it is trivial.

"I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. As a result of the war, corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavour to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed." : Abraham Lincoln

Faith

My stance doesn't indicate the belief that I'm more worthy of salvation than a non-Christian like Gandhi. As I've said, I don't know who God will deem worthy of Heaven...and I don't care to speculate on the grounds that I may be entirely wrong.

Mageth

Well, yes, I understand that it's the proper Christian stance that no one is "worthy" of salvation. But I was referring to the "judgment" part - you've indicated that we will be judged for our beliefs, and that possibly if not probably those that don't believe in God will not be allowed into (i.e., will not be "worthy" of) heaven.

Please forgive me for harping on this, but I'm still confused by some of your statements that seem to conflict.

Earlier, you said:

"But it seems scripturally clear that reaching Heaven is dependent upon faith in God's existence at the very least."

Now, I definitely do not have "faith in God's existence." So do you believe the Bible where it makes it clear that reaching Heaven is dependent upon faith in God's existence? Because when you say you "don't know who God will deem worthy of Heaven", it sounds like you don't exactly put too much stock in what you claimed elsewhere the Bible makes clear, at least for unbelievers like me.

Irishbrutha

Mageth wrote, "Again, that seems to conflict with the belief that people that do not "believe" as you do (i.e. do not believe in God) will be judged unworthy to be allowed into heaven. That stance seems to put a pretty high "moral" value on believing in God, at least from my perspective."

I think we've covered this somewhere else Mageth, but maybe not. Prevention from heaven does not have anything to do with belief or lack of belief. Hell is acquired by virtue of our sinfulness and God's holiness. Hell is avoided by our receipt of the righteousness of Christ. The causal relationship is between our state and our direction. We are not punished for lack of belief, but for lack of righteousness. We are given a way out of that unrighteousness through the process of belief. But that is not ontologically the primary cause of being prevented from entering heaven. It's a lifeline thrown after the ontological fact of our deserved condemnation.

I'm in the ocean, a shark is headed straight at me, and a man throws me a ladder that will lead me into his boat. I refuse it. The shark eats me. What was the direct and efficent cause of my consumption? Being eaten or not getting out of the water. Well both were conditions that led to my being eaten. But in the end it was the shark that ate me.

I'm in my sin. God's judgment is swimming right at me. His son throws me a ladder into heaven. Which fact is the direct and efficient cause of my condemnation?

-Shaun