ithinklogic

I have quite recently been down the same path as ishalon albeit starting from hinduism (I had to ask the same question of more than one god) before giving up.

There has been one thought that has been nagging me. What if god wanted there to be a certain number / percentage (in the minority) of non believers.

Why ? Just to juxtapose against believers, to inspire believers and for whatever other reason.

Why do I think that ? Most every holy book of every religion devotes time and space to non believers.

Was hoping this discussion would provide an answer.

Philosoft

I think this certainly must be true of the Christian God, at least.

<strong> This logical conclusion is what necessitates the ad hoc "free will" argument in Christian doctrine.

<strong> One way to look at this is if non-believers had always existed, which presumably they have, it would have been in the best interests of the book writers to demonize non-belief if their motivations, in part or in whole, were to use the religion as a form of social control.

Just a suggestion, you might get more diverse and complete answers to your questions in the Biblical Criticism and Non-Abrahamic Religions forums.

Tercel

A bit now. I've read several books written to explain Orthodoxy to the average Westerner such as myself.

I can understand what you mean and agree. However the way you stated it implies that they're against the use of reason or are somehow intellectually backward. As far as I can tell, they just recognise the limited use that reason has in understanding all Christian doctrines.

Well I agree with them on that point.

Of course. However you said:
"but if you don't believe that God cares about our beliefs or that belief in Jesus Christ is necessary for salvation, maybe you're not [a Christian]."

In light of having read the article, do you wish to rephrase that comment?

Haha Toto you are a funny guy...
Since (of course! ) Christians don't think freely, why would a free thinking person want to call themselves Christian?
Sounds to me like the question "have you stopped beating your wife yet?"

Toto

No, I see no reason to revise that comment, based on the article. Could you point out what you are talking about?

I'm not saying that Christians cannot think freely, but there has to be some dividing line between a Christian and Deist and a secular humanist. If Christians can believe any imaginative thing they want, and it doesn't make any difference if you believe in God or Jesus, what is that line?

You realize that in the past people were burned at the stake for taking the wrong position on these questions. Aren't you lucky that the Enlightenment came along and put a stop to that?

Bible Humper

Do you know why this type of "prayer" is so regularly answered?

Take a look at self-improvement books and you will find that your "prayer" is awfully similar in the step-by-steps used to free oneself from these types of problems. God is superfluous.

A typical "step-by-step" is along the lines of:

1. Identify the problem, and admit that it is a problem.

2. Identify the changes you need to make in order to solve your problem

3. Make a verbal agreement with yourself to undertake the needed changes.

These "prayers" you mentioned utilize known psychological tools used for personal improvement, they are not the result of supernatural intervention.

Your 100% success rate is impressive though, are you a "do it" kind of personality? I am sure that you are, to some degree at least, with that kind of success.

You can test this for yourself though, by not "helping God" next time.

It is unreasonable to expect confirmation from an omni-max deity who values our belief in him above all things? The "God doesn't reveal himself in such an overt manner" deflection is inadequate, since he allegedly sent himself down to us as a sacrifice to himself, and in the meantime performed all sorts of miracles which we are expected to believe in as recorded in his holy book, written in the form of "eye-witness accounts".

Doesn't this also contradict what you said in the first quote about God always answering self-improvement prayers? His actual intervention could be considered proof of his existence, don't you think?
Or are you perhaps not so sure whether or not those "prayers" work because of Him?

TollHouse

Interesting. I wonder if Tercel and others think you were being childish and selfish by giving up on the Hindu gods?

Tercel

Hi bd-from-kg,

Well my first impression is: Oh joy there's some Bible verses that disagree with my position. May I remind you that the Bible has sufficient contradictions in it that there will be verses that disagree with any position?
Yes there are no doubt such verses that are against my position, but there are also verses that are for my position.

I would also note that when I have used the word "believe" in this thread, I've been referring to acceptence or otherwise of the intellectual proposition that God exists. That doesn't seem to be the same way it is being used in many of the verses you quote. eg If I say I "believe in" my friend, I do not mean I believe he exists, but rather that I have some sort of trust in his ability to do something.
Also I would add that my position is only that God doesn't care in this life about our intellectual belief in his existence. I do believe that when we die we will gain certain knowledge of God's existence, and that salvation is possible after death.
It's not instantly clear thus given my position that the verses you quoted are definitively against my position.

I'm not really interested in a detailed discussion of my interpretation of these verses and whether or not each is in fact a contradiction to my position (after a brief read it looks to me as if many of them are not). It would take me several hours to thoughtfully analyse them and write an enlighted response and I don't have that much time at my disposal right now.
When it comes down to it frankly I don't care if there are some bible verses disagreeing with me (which I'm not convinced they are, I think I just interpret the use of the word "belief" or "faith" less narrowly), or whether you think my position is not sufficiently Biblical.

I don't deny that sometimes God will want a person to believe. eg Paul's conversion. But those are special cases, where there are other advantages to be gained. My position is not that God positively does NOT want people to believe but rather that belief is a means to an end, not the end itself.

For the rest I would wonder whether what John refers to as "belief in" Jesus could be equated to "union with" Jesus. But it may well be that John disagrees with my position.

As far as the quotes from Paul go, I see zero problem with them. Remember I think that everyone will find out the truth and hence "believe" when they die. Paul is simply saying that it's not through obedience to the Law or by Works that we are saved and rather God saves by grace through Jesus Christ.

Well I think you misunderstand my position, I believe God does care about what we believe but only so far as it serves to effect our actions and nature.
A few of the MANY ("zero"! ) verses that come to mind at this point are:
Whoops, where's "belief" in that last list? Perhaps the great apostle James the brother of Jesus and all (assuming of course the conservative view of James as the author) forgot just how important belief was? Oh no... wait... he mentions it later as being: something that even the demons have - and just look at all the frigging good it does them (he even notes that they "tremble in fear" because of their belief)
And look at Matthew. He's dealing exactly and directly with the issue of eternal judgement. Other times in the Bible it's mentioned indirectly, but here Matthew directly relates the issue and belief is not mentioned once.

Actually I do rate Paul extremely highly on the "position to know" area. And generally I agree with what I see as (which is apparently different to your interpretation) Paul's position on subjects. (Of course his opinions on the position of women I think leave something to be desired) I strongly suspect Paul of being a universalist, or at least extremely close to it. See Romans 5:18-19 (and preceeding context) for example: He compares Christ's saving work for all to Adam's fall which brought death to all. And just as all men die physically because of Adam, so all will live because of Christ.

You seem to have forgotten that first and foremost among my stated criteria was my own abilities in reasoning and common sense. Howevermuch you think (and I would disagree in some places with your assessment) the other criteria are satisfied, the idea that following are all true is a joke:
* If we don't believe in Jesus then God condemns us to hell eternally.
* Many people die without ever hearing about this and cannot possibly believe.
* God is loving (support with a semi-infinite number of Bible verses). Wants all to be saved and he died for all (Romans 5:18,19;2 Cor 5:14,15,19;1 Tim 2:4;1 John 2:2 etc)
* Even to those who have heard the Gospel it isn't stunningly obvious that it's true.
* God is all-powerful

It doesn't take a genious to work out there are more than a few problems with holding all those points to be true. The link I gave Toto voices a similar complaint.

Well you're entitled to your opinions. But IMO that's utter crap and I give great respect to these things. Do I always believe them or agree with them? No. Yes I do differ in some things. However, in general, my differences always have precedent and are well within the bounds of historic Church speculation on such issues: I really don't appreciate being accused either of not being a Christian or of making things up.

How could it be more than "interesting" or "worthy of consideration"? Those sound like fairly high compliments to me.
Oh wait, let me guess: You want be to believe it fell out of the sky after being written by the very hand of God himself and contains nothing but the Literal Truth(tm)...

I would take a slightly different definition of Christian and say that as far as intellectual beliefs that have to be accepted to call oneself a Christian go: If you believe most of the Nicene Creed you are a Christian, if you don't then you aren't. (The Nicene Creed for those readers who are unfamiliar with it was a 4th Century statement of Christian beliefs which has been all but universally accepted across the board by all Christians ever since.)

One translation of it can be found at:
<a href="http://www.mit.edu/~tb/anglican/intro/lr-nicene-creed.html" target="_blank">http://www.mit.edu/~tb/anglican/intro/lr-nicene-creed.html</a>
So lets have a look shall we (Creed in bold, non-bold parts are added commentary by me generally involving various biblical verses and other Christian creeds and beliefs which should demonstrate to anyone that is even passingly familiar with Christian beliefs that I don't only accept what the creed says but go way beyond that)

---------
<strong>We believe in one God,</strong>
Amen. I affirm completely the traditional doctrine of the Trinity. 1 God, 3 persons.

<strong>the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen.</strong>
Amen. The Father has power over all things and the title of Almighty. He was the first existent and ultimately responsible for everything else that has existence. He created heaven and earth by his will.

<strong>We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,</strong>
Amen. There is but one Lord of all and that is Christ. Appointed by the Father as Lord and under whos feet the Father places all things. Though we become his brothers by grace, and sons of God, he is the only true Son of God as he is the only one who is truly God's son by nature, as he is:
<strong>eternally begotten of the Father,</strong>
Amen. The Father eternally begets the Son. Not only that, but Christ is also of the same nature of God. Just as the sons of humans are humans, so the Son of God is himself God:

<strong>God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,</strong>
Amen. The Son, being truly a Son is not a created being, rather he is:

<strong>begotten, not made,</strong>
Amen.

<strong>of one Being with the Father.</strong>
Amen. Though the Son is not the same as the Father, and the persons are always to be distinguished. Neverthess neither should the substance be devided, for the nature of the Son is the nature of the Father and what the Father wills the Son wills also. God acts as one and is truly one in ultimate being. Thus we affirm but one Being but distinguish 3 persons within that essence.

<strong>Through him all things were made.</strong>
Amen. For nothing that was made was made without the Son. He is the the Wisdom of God, the very uncreated Word of God that all created things have their being through.

<strong>For us and for our salvation
he came down from heaven:</strong>
Amen. For Christ is the only way to salvation and salvation is through him alone. Thus did he come down from heaven, not thinking his equality with the Father something he should exploit, but rather being willing to take on the nature of a slave, doing everything in obedience to the Father even when it culminated in his innocent death on the cross.

<strong>by the power of the Holy Spirit
he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary,
and was made man.</strong>
Amen. For it was by the Holy Spirit that the Blessed Virgin conceived. And her son Jesus was fully a man, with a human nature just as she also had. He was a flesh and blood Jew, a descendant of David. Yet also he was the Christ, the second person of the Trinity and very Son of God. The two natures not being confused: Just as in humans there dwells a spirit within a body and the two should not be confused, so in Jesus Christ there dwelt the very nature of God inside a fully human body. And so we say that he was not half-God, half-Man, but rather: Fully God and Fully Man. For he posessed both natures and we do not confuse them. For it must be realised that he was tempted in every way that we are: he fully shared our human nature. For it was only because he was fully man that he could ever be a representative of humankind and that we could have union in him and hence that he could reconcile us to God; and it was only because he was fully God that he could ever overcome the human nature and be the perfect sacrifice and effect redemption from God's side.

<strong>For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered death and was buried.</strong>
Amen. He died physically on the cross, under a real governor, suffered real death and was really buried.

<strong>On the third day he rose again
in accordance with the Scriptures;</strong>
Amen. Yet the glorious thing is that he did not stay dead, but rose to life. A victory over death, and a foretaste of the life that we will share. And all this happened in accordence with the Scriptures, both the writings of the prophets predicting his death and resurrection and the writings of the Gospels attesting to the occurance of this fact and the writings of the apostles confirming their belief in this truth.


<strong>he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.</strong>
Amen. For after being raised to life and appearing to many, he left the physical world and ascended into the spiritual realm, returning to the Father. Though we deny that he is physically and literally seated at the right hand of the Father - for neither are physical beings that can be seated, nor does the Father have a hand that Christ can be seated at the right of, nor is there any direction is the spiritual realm such as "right". - we use this imagery as of a King who seats his greatest and most trusted lord at his right hand side. So it is that the Father gives the Son glory above all else.

<strong>He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end.</strong>
Amen. Just as the Son ascended to heaven, so one day he will return, and then judgement shall be passed and each shall recieve what is justly his. Yet we proclaim also that grace and mercy shall superceed justice, and that God's justice consists of giving to those who do not deserve it and being loving and kind to all.
And then Christ will be in all and have victory over all. All things will be placed under Christ's command and he will place himself under the command of the Father, bringing all things back to God. And this state of affairs shall not be temporary but rather: eternal.

<strong>We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,</strong>
Amen. The Holy Spirit is the third person of the trinity. Just as it is right that Father should be called God and Lord, and it is right the Son should be called God and Lord, so it is right that the Spirit should be called God and Lord. Similarly the Spirit is called Holy just as the Son and the Father are called Holy. Just as it is the Father that is responsible for the creation of all things, and just as it is the Son that it is whom through which all things were created, so it is the Spirit through whom which all things that have life have their life. God is thus call our Sustainer as well as our Creator, for his act of creation continues at every moment, sustaining our existence by his continuing and everlasting will.

<strong>who proceeds from the Father (and the Son).</strong>
This has been disputed. The Western Churches holding that the Spirit eternally proceeds from the Father and the Son, the Eastern Churches holding that the Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father only though they grant that it is the Son who sent the Holy Spirit to the world on his temporal mission - ie to Christian believers.
I do not venture to say which is correct. However recent discussions have generally found acceptable "from the Father through the Son" and I will say "Amen" to that.

<strong>With the Father and the Son he is worshiped and glorified.</strong>
Amen. For the Spirit is the third person of the Trinity and very God also. And so as we worship and glorify God we worship and glorify the Father Son and Spirit together, the first uncreated, the second begotten and the third proceeding.

<strong>He has spoken through the Prophets.</strong>
Amen. Not only has the Spirit guided the Prophets in the past but his role continues in the Church today guiding believers to prophesy.

<strong>We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.</strong>
Amen. For "catholic" means "universal", and is but one Church of God, the metaphorical bride of Chirst. Though there may exist divisions and stife, there is but ultimately one Church.

<strong>We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.</strong>
Amen. We baptise in the name of the Father, Son and Spirit: Yet we regard the baptisism as but one event. And the water symbolises the forgiveness of sins, of the washing away of our sins by the blood of Christ, and of death to the old nature and the rebirth in the new nature that is of Christ.

<strong>We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come. Amen.</strong>
Amen. For we believe that just as Christ was the first, so we shall also be raised from death. And have life eternal in the world that is to come.
-----------

Other fairly traditional Christian things I also believe in are things such as angels and demons, the Devil etc.
I think clearly anyone who says I'm not a Christian doesn't really know what they are talking about. I might be a "liberal" Christian in that I don't think the Bible is inerrant or the Word of God, or that I accept evolution, or that I think salvation is for more than simply those who believe in the existence of God and that Jesus death saved us.

Well that would make me a Christian then, since I believe that completely and utterly. I have no idea how you managed to think that I didn't.


Sorry for the long post,
But whether or not I am actually a Christian is a rather important question!
Tercel

[ July 22, 2002: Message edited by: Tercel ]</p>

Tercel

Hmm I had a bit of a further look into John, and even that's not so clear cut. While apparently relating belief with salvation, several other verses of John serve to fudge the issue:

This is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for their deeds were evil.
"For everyone who does evil hates the Light, and does not come to the Light for fear that his deeds will be exposed.
"But he who practices the truth comes to the Light, so that his deeds may be manifested as having been wrought in God John 3:19-21

This occurs immediately following the 3:16-18 section you quoted at me and seems to serve to reduce the force of John's statement. John apparently thinks it is reasonable to generally approximate the saved with Christians since he appears to be arguing that those who come to the light are more likely to be Christians.

"Do not be amazed at this, for a time is coming when all who are in their graves will hear his voice and come out--those who have done good will rise to live, and those who have done evil will rise to be condemned. John 5:28-29

Again, after having apparently supported salvation by belief in 5:24 which you quoted, John turns around and 4 verses later gives a statement which as it stands could be taken as supporting completely a salvation by works theology.

RogerLeeCooke

Ah David, such a cruel choice we face! Which god is it who is condemning us for not believing in him? Shiva? Yahweh? Allah?

If only one knew WHICH god was the really true one. But, unfortunately, the evidence for all of them is exactly the same, which is to say non-existent. But I'm sure you've got it right. Our PRIMARY obligation while we are alive is to believe. Believing is the main thing. If you try really, really hard, like the Red Queen, you can believe six impossible things before breakfast.

RogerLeeCooke

Not only in the Gospel of John, Tercel. There are similar contradictions all over the New Testament. The jailer who imprisoned Paul and Barnabas (Acts 16) asked what he needed to do to be saved (this was during an earthquake, but it's clear from the answer that it wasn't the earthquake he was to be saved from), "and they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house'" (I think the word 'house' here is metonymy, meaning the man's family. However, since there was an earthquake, it may have been the building.) Likewise, in Ephesians 2:8-9, you can find Paul stating categorically that salvation is through faith, not through works.

But then you read Matthew 25, with the famous parable of the sheep and the goats, and it is very clear that people are judged according to their works.

If I thought there was any consistency among so many books written by so many people, I'd agree with Edmund Cohen that it's all a mind game played to keep the faithful neurotically worried about their salvation. But I don't believe that. Different people had different points of view, and all alike were mistaken in expecting immortality. It ain't gonna happen.