Agnostic.

[Armin]

According to what I've heard, Christianity is based upon having faith that God exists. Faith is the strong belief in an idea. Since the circumstances on getting accepted into heaven hasn't changed since Jesus died on the cross, so it's basically timeless (until of course that huge Heaven vs Hell war). Since ideas are never a proven fact, until of course somebody can prove them, does this mean that Christians believe that it is impossible to know for a fact whether there is a God, yet they just have strong belief that there is a God? Does this mean that Christians are, in a way, agnostic?

If the above is true, I want to put a few of my beliefs into question. If God exists, then he will accept you into Heaven if you show faith. If this is true, I believe that when God put time in motion, he set it in motion so everything can be described through science, as since it's all about faith, if he made it possible to scientifically prove his existence, or if he made it impossible to scientifically the world and the universe we live in, then instead of having faith, it would be knowing, and it would fuck everything up.

I posted this because I want to challenge my beliefs.

[Sidoh]

According to what I've heard, Christianity is based upon having faith that God exists. Faith is the strong belief in an idea. Since the circumstances on getting accepted into heaven hasn't changed since Jesus died on the cross, so it's basically timeless (until of course that huge Heaven vs Hell war). Since ideas are never a proven fact, until of course somebody can prove them, does this mean that Christians believe that it is impossible to know for a fact whether there is a God, yet they just have strong belief that there is a God? Does this mean that Christians are, in a way, agnostic?

Faith isn't supposed to be logical.  Faith is believing in something, regardless of the logical or scientific proof implying otherwise (or lack thereof).  No, Christians are not agnostic.  An agnostic is someone who doesn't know if God exists or not.  A Christian may not be able to prove that God exists beyond reasonable doubt, but they can believe that God exists by faith alone.

If the above is true, I want to put a few of my beliefs into question. If God exists, then he will accept you into Heaven if you show faith. If this is true, I believe that when God put time in motion, he set it in motion so everything can be described through science, as since it's all about faith, if he made it possible to scientifically prove his existence, or if he made it impossible to scientifically the world and the universe we live in, then instead of having faith, it would be knowing, and it would fuck everything up.

I posted this because I want to challenge my beliefs.

Why would God make everything proveable through science?  I don't see any reason that this should be the case.

[Armin]

According to what I've heard, Christianity is based upon having faith that God exists. Faith is the strong belief in an idea. Since the circumstances on getting accepted into heaven hasn't changed since Jesus died on the cross, so it's basically timeless (until of course that huge Heaven vs Hell war). Since ideas are never a proven fact, until of course somebody can prove them, does this mean that Christians believe that it is impossible to know for a fact whether there is a God, yet they just have strong belief that there is a God? Does this mean that Christians are, in a way, agnostic?

Faith isn't supposed to be logical.  Faith is believing in something, regardless of the logical or scientific proof implying otherwise (or lack thereof).  No, Christians are not agnostic.  An agnostic is someone who doesn't know if God exists or not.  A Christian may not be able to prove that God exists beyond reasonable doubt, but they can believe that God exists by faith alone.

I never said faith is supposed to be logical. By definition, an agnostic is somebody that thinks it's impossible to know whether or not God exists. Christians don't know, they strongly believe. No matter how much they think they know, they only strongly believe. Anyways, I'm just trying to be a technical ass here, it doesn't really matter. What I was trying to get across, is that it's impossible to prove God's existance.

If the above is true, I want to put a few of my beliefs into question. If God exists, then he will accept you into Heaven if you show faith. If this is true, I believe that when God put time in motion, he set it in motion so everything can be described through science, as since it's all about faith, if he made it possible to scientifically prove his existence, or if he made it impossible to scientifically the world and the universe we live in, then instead of having faith, it would be knowing, and it would fuck everything up.

I posted this because I want to challenge my beliefs.

Why would God make everything proveable through science?  I don't see any reason that this should be the case.

Reread my post, I explained it perfectly fine.

[Sidoh]

I never said faith is supposed to be logical. By definition, an agnostic is somebody that thinks it's impossible to know whether or not God exists. Christians don't know, they strongly believe. No matter how much they think they know, they only strongly believe. Anyways, I'm just trying to be a technical ass here, it doesn't really matter. What I was trying to get across, is that it's impossible to prove God's existance.

Currently, there may be no way to cast away the inherent shadow of doubt that any proof for the existence of God entails, but that doesn't mean that it will forever be impossible.

You can't say that people don't know God exists.  Faith fills in the gap for belief.

Here's a scenario: do you love your parents?  music?  your siblings?  Prove it.  If you can't, you don't love them.  Simple as that... right? (See what I mean?)

Reread my post, I explained it perfectly fine.

I don't think so.  The way you worded whatever you're tyring to say is pretty convoluted, so I'm going to attempt to clarify it: you believe that God made it possible to prove everything scientifically?  You believe that he made the entire universe understandable by a miniscule, finite mind?

[Joe]

The existance of God was proven nearly 2000 years ago when Jesus rose from the dead, but of course none still live who saw it. If Christianity is not a lie, it'll be proven again soon by the rapture and the battle of Armageddon, and eventually the world being destroyed. Technically, I guess we're agnostic because at this very second in time we can't prove his existance, but we're not agnostic in the intended meaning.

[Eric]

I never said faith is supposed to be logical. By definition, an agnostic is somebody that thinks it's impossible to know whether or not God exists. Christians don't know, they strongly believe. No matter how much they think they know, they only strongly believe. Anyways, I'm just trying to be a technical ass here, it doesn't really matter. What I was trying to get across, is that it's impossible to prove God's existance.

Here's a scenario: do you love your parents?  music?  your siblings?  Prove it.  If you can't, you don't love them.  Simple as that... right? (See what I mean?)

You stole that from Contact!

[Sidoh]

You stole that from Contact!

Hehe, I just watched it again a few days ago.  It's such an excellent movie.  I love Haden: "Wanna take a ride?"

I actually meant to credit it, but the thought skipped my mind before I continued composing my message.

[Armin]

I never said faith is supposed to be logical. By definition, an agnostic is somebody that thinks it's impossible to know whether or not God exists. Christians don't know, they strongly believe. No matter how much they think they know, they only strongly believe. Anyways, I'm just trying to be a technical ass here, it doesn't really matter. What I was trying to get across, is that it's impossible to prove God's existance.

Currently, there may be no way to cast away the inherent shadow of doubt that any proof for the existence of God entails, but that doesn't mean that it will forever be impossible.

(until of course that huge Heaven vs Hell war)

You can't say that people don't know God exists. Faith fills in the gap for belief.

Here's a scenario: do you love your parents?  music?  your siblings?  Prove it.  If you can't, you don't love them.  Simple as that... right? (See what I mean?)

Anyways, I'm just trying to be a technical ass here, it doesn't really matter. What I was trying to get across, is that it's impossible to prove God's existance.

Stop misreading what I'm saying. I'm NOT trying to disprove the existance of God, I'm only trying to clarify that everyone believes it's impossible to prove his existance.

Reread my post, I explained it perfectly fine.

I don't think so.  The way you worded whatever you're tyring to say is pretty convoluted, so I'm going to attempt to clarify it: you believe that God made it possible to prove everything scientifically?  You believe that he made the entire universe understandable by a miniscule, finite mind?

I feel that if God does exist, he would make it so it's eventually possible to understand. I believe that if he did not, eventually scientists will not only find things that don't add up when they should, they will eventually be able to prove it. That means if the universe we live in is a stage, there must be a God, taking the entire faith thing out of the picture, and turning it into common knowledge. Then what will be the purpose of this test we're living in, if we already know all the answers? And no, I don't believe the universe is understandable by a miniscule, finite mind, which is just stupid if you seriously think I meant that. It's impossible for anyone to know everything.

Anyways, just to make sure you fully understand this, I'm NOT trying to disprove the existance of God. I'm trying to challenge some of my theories, which aren't really useful to anyone but myself. Your constant misreading of what I'm asking definately isn't helping. If anyone really takes the time to read and understand my thread, along with having no pre-conceived notion about the purpose of my thread, then they should be able to understand it fine.

The existance of God was proven nearly 2000 years ago when Jesus rose from the dead, but of course none still live who saw it. If Christianity is not a lie, it'll be proven again soon by the rapture and the battle of Armageddon, and eventually the world being destroyed. Technically, I guess we're agnostic because at this very second in time we can't prove his existance, but we're not agnostic in the intended meaning. Even Joe seemed to understand it.

Yeah, like I said in my second post to Sidoh, I was basically trying to be a technical ass. Most of that build-up was for the second paragraph in my original post, though.

[Sidoh]

Stop misreading what I'm saying. I'm NOT trying to disprove the existance of God, I'm only trying to clarify that everyone believes it's impossible to prove his existance.

If there was a universally acceptable proof for either side of the argument, I don't think we'd be discussing this.

The point of my last post was to show you that you can believe or know something while being unable to prove it.  Christians can believe and know that God exists even while they're incapable of proving to anyone else that they believe he exists.  My example illustrates that quite well, I think.  An agnostic is someone who believes that it is impossible to prove that God exists and, consequentially, refuses to believe in Him.  Christians are not Agnostic; they believe in God without proof -- they have faith: that which does not require proof for belief.

I feel that if God does exist, he would make it so it's eventually possible to understand. I believe that if he did not, eventually scientists will not only find things that don't add up when they should, they will eventually be able to prove it. That means if the universe we live in is a stage, there must be a God, taking the entire faith thing out of the picture, and turning it into common knowledge. Then what will be the purpose of this test we're living in, if we already know all the answers? And no, I don't believe the universe is understandable by a miniscule, finite mind, which is just stupid if you seriously think I meant that. It's impossible for anyone to know everything.

Why would God make it possible to prove his existence at some point in our time?  God doesn't have to comply with any set of logical boundaries.  He doesn't have to act on human intuition.  You can believe that if you want, but I think it would be unwise to accept it as the absolute truth.  Applying guesses derived from human intuition to a deity doesn't make any sense to me.

I'll show you why I thought that.  Hopefully after you see that I was simply countering one of your posts you'll not see my retort as "stupid." :

If the above is true, I want to put a few of my beliefs into question. If God exists, then he will accept you into Heaven if you show faith. If this is true, I believe that when God put time in motion, he set it in motion so everything can be described through science, as since it's all about faith, if he made it possible to scientifically prove his existence, or if he made it impossible to scientifically the world and the universe we live in, then instead of having faith, it would be knowing, and it would fuck everything up.

If "everything" was supposed to be referring to "everything" in reference to the proof of the existence of God, perhaps you should define your scope before using such a broad term.

Anyways, just to make sure you fully understand this, I'm NOT trying to disprove the existance of God. I'm trying to challenge some of my theories, which aren't really useful to anyone but myself. Your constant misreading of what I'm asking definately isn't helping. If anyone really takes the time to read and understand my thread, along with having no pre-conceived notion about the purpose of my thread, then they should be able to understand it fine.

I think you have some fundamental problems with your theories.

[rabbit]

The existance of God was proven nearly 2000 years ago when Jesus rose from the dead, but of course none still live who saw it. If Christianity is not a lie, it'll be proven again soon by the rapture and the battle of Armageddon, and eventually the world being destroyed. Technically, I guess we're agnostic because at this very second in time we can't prove his existance, but we're not agnostic in the intended meaning.

Prove God's existence was proven.  Prove the rapture will happen.  Prove, if the rapture will happen, that it will happen soon.  All the Christians and Catholics are psychopaths: "YAY END OF THE WORLD!"  Fucktards (offense meant).  If you don't care about the rest of the planet and instead only want to be with God and Jesus, you are guilty of Greed and are therefore going strait to hell.  A true believer would not want the rapture to happen so that he or she has more time to try to Save others.

[deadly7]

The existance of God was proven nearly 2000 years ago when Jesus rose from the dead, but of course none still live who saw it. If Christianity is not a lie, it'll be proven again soon by the rapture and the battle of Armageddon, and eventually the world being destroyed. Technically, I guess we're agnostic because at this very second in time we can't prove his existance, but we're not agnostic in the intended meaning.

I don't know how many times people will say this and continue to say this because you have absolutely no chance of understanding, but: YOU CANNOT PROVE THE EXISTANCE OF GOD USING SCRIPTURES OR OTHER RELIGIOUS MATERIAL.

[skip]

The existance of God was proven nearly 2000 years ago when Jesus rose from the dead, but of course none still live who saw it. If Christianity is not a lie, it'll be proven again soon by the rapture and the battle of Armageddon, and eventually the world being destroyed. Technically, I guess we're agnostic because at this very second in time we can't prove his existance, but we're not agnostic in the intended meaning.

Prove God's existence was proven.  Prove the rapture will happen.  Prove, if the rapture will happen, that it will happen soon.  All the Christians and Catholics are psychopaths: "YAY END OF THE WORLD!"  Fucktards (offense meant).  If you don't care about the rest of the planet and instead only want to be with God and Jesus, you are guilty of Greed and are therefore going strait to hell.  A true believer would not want the rapture to happen so that he or she has more time to try to Save others.

You apparently do not know much about Christianity. So, I suggest you not try and pretend you do, it makes you look stupid. Don't take that offensively, please.

This has nothing to do with the topic at hand but... take a look around you. Animals, nature, humans, EVERYTHING. Do you honestly think that happened by accident? That us even being alive on this Earth is a pure accident? The fact that even a slight mishap within our bodies would have made us unable to live.

I have friends who can speak tongue, which is a spiritual gift. Do you think that they are pretending to speak another language?

A good website: http://www.answersingenesis.org/
Look around the site, read the articles. Do it without a biased point of view. Seriously.

[Armin]

Well, Sidoh, I had a nice response to your post last night, yet FF had some freak accident and decided to randomly close. Since I don't want to write it all over again, I'm just going to be brief, and not reply to every little thing.

Why would God make it possible to prove his existence at some point in our time?  God doesn't have to comply with any set of logical boundaries.  He doesn't have to act on human intuition.  You can believe that if you want, but I think it would be unwise to accept it as the absolute truth.  Applying guesses derived from human intuition to a deity doesn't make any sense to me.

This is something that I was looking for when I posted it, you finally understood one thing I was trying to say. Anyways, I actually thought a little about this before you posted this, and you made me think about it even more. Thank you, I now believe there are other possibilities than my theory.

I think you have some fundamental problems with your theories.

Theory*, and yes, I posted it here so I could find flaws, not to attempt to spread knowledge.

Just to get one last thing straight though:

If there was a universally acceptable proof for either side of the argument, I don't think we'd be discussing this.

The thing is, we weren't argueing. You think we were argueing about whether Christians are agnostic or not, even though I said this in my second post:

Anyways, I'm just trying to be a technical ass here, it doesn't really matter. What I was trying to get across, is that it's impossible to prove God's existance.

That wasn't a theory, it was just me being a technical ass. I also looked up the definition of "know", and found out I was technically wrong. Too bad it had absolutely nothing to do with my theory, and really nothing to do with disproving the existance of God. That whole first paragraph was just a build-up to the second paragraph, with the exception of that whole agnostic line.

[rabbit]

www.answersingenesis.org [...]
Do it without a biased point of view.

You realize that claiming to have answers outright in a 5000 year old text that nobody can prove or disprove is unbiased?

[skip]

www.answersingenesis.org [...]
Do it without a biased point of view.

You realize that claiming to have answers outright in a 5000 year old text that nobody can prove or disprove is unbiased?

Did you even go to the site?
You probably didn't even read ONE article on that site and you're already saying shit. It's the same thing as you trying to disprove Christianity. You don't know shit and you're acting like you do.

People like you really tick me off.

[rabbit]

"a Christian ministry that seeks to share the truths of God’s Word from the very first verse."

And?  How do I know it's true?  Because an old book and a lot of people say "it's true"?  You know what a lot of people said once?  It was "Heil Hitler!"  Does that make what Hitler said true, or right in any way?  You'll have a hard time convincing a <pleh> (I forget the word, "logical" is a bad replacement) person that religion is right and everything the person believes is wrong (science, evolution, etc...).  And "people like you make me sick"?  What ever happened to "Love Thy Fellow Man"?  Fuck you.

And, for your information I went to a Christian school for the past 6 years, so don't tell me what I do or don't know.

[skip]

"a Christian ministry that seeks to share the truths of God’s Word from the very first verse."

And?  How do I know it's true?  Because an old book and a lot of people say "it's true"?  You know what a lot of people said once?  It was "Heil Hitler!"  Does that make what Hitler said true, or right in any way?  You'll have a hard time convincing a <pleh> (I forget the word, "logical" is a bad replacement) person that religion is right and everything the person believes is wrong (science, evolution, etc...).  And "people like you make me sick"?  What ever happened to "Love Thy Fellow Man"?  Fuck you.

And, for your information I went to a Christian school for the past 6 years, so don't tell me what I do or don't know.

I'm sorry, I shouldn't have said that. It just kind of pissed me off.

*Sigh*, did you read ONE article on that site yet? It's not to force you to believe that God is real, it's to help you "grow a little" (couldn't think of a better way to put it). You have to start somewhere, right?
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i3/answer.asp
Start by reading that.

Seriously, it's extremely hard to convince someone who shoots down everything I say without even researching or truely thinking about it.

[Armin]

Maybe he doesn't want to be convinced? No one can convince me that God exists, I'll have to find out on my own. If anyone tries to convince me, then I'll shut them down. The only time I'll talk to another person about is when I'm questioning a theory I have, like I did in this thread.

[skip]

Maybe he doesn't want to be convinced? No one can convince me that God exists, I'll have to find out on my own. If anyone tries to convince me, then I'll shut them down. The only time I'll talk to another person about is when I'm questioning a theory I have, like I did in this thread.

I understand. However, like it says in The Bible, Jesus will come like a thief in the night. You never know when He will come. It could be tomorrow, 100 years from now, next week, whatever.

I'm sorry if I was a bit [place the word you want here].

[rabbit]

I can tell you now: most people will reject what is forced on them, which is why so many people hate evangelicals, but are generally fine with the rest of the Church.  I'm fine with what I believe, and I don't care what non-violent structure you believe in.  As soon as someone says "I die for <insert religious reason>" or "Believe in what I believe or you will be eternally punished (or something)", I start getting mad.  It's basically what sites like Answers In Genesis are: propaganda sources designed to turn non-believers or keep current believers.  It's telling me that the right answers are in Genesis (whole Bible, really), and that if I don't accept that I'm damned to eternal suffering.  I refuse that.

[skip]

I can tell you now: most people will reject what is forced on them, which is why so many people hate evangelicals, but are generally fine with the rest of the Church.  I'm fine with what I believe, and I don't care what non-violent structure you believe in.  As soon as someone says "I die for <insert religious reason>" or "Believe in what I believe or you will be eternally punished (or something)", I start getting mad.  It's basically what sites like Answers In Genesis are: propaganda sources designed to turn non-believers or keep current believers.  It's telling me that the right answers are in Genesis (whole Bible, really), and that if I don't accept that I'm damned to eternal suffering.  I refuse that.

Sure, I understand where you are coming from.

The fact that you will be eternally damned to hell if you don't believe in Christianity bring some people into Christianity. People underestimate hell. So many people are like, "I'm going to hell anyway, it doesn't matter."

That site helped my strengthen my faith tremendously. I was hoping it would help you a little.

Question: What DO you believe in?

[Armin]

Me? I haven't given much thought into this yet, don't want to give much thought into it for a while, and don't want anyone's feedback into it.

I believe that if a person is good and pure, God won't send them to hell simply because they were a bit skeptical about whether or not God exists, as he isn't exactly out in the open. I believe that all good and pure people will be let into heaven, as once all of they all get there, they'll sure as hell believe God exists if they didn't already. I still don't know what I believe about why the bible says faith gets you acceptance into heaven. I'll eventually think about that.

[Sidoh]

This is something that I was looking for when I posted it, you finally understood one thing I was trying to say. Anyways, I actually thought a little about this before you posted this, and you made me think about it even more. Thank you, I now believe there are other possibilities than my theory.

It's your fault for convoluting something so simple in nature.

You added a lot of fluff to this; do not try to blame me or anyone else for overlooking what you were intending the "main point to be."  It wasn't nearly as obvious as you're making it seem.

Theory*, and yes, I posted it here so I could find flaws, not to attempt to spread knowledge.

It seems to be a series of causes and effects that you've deducted from a simple, intuitive guess or assumption.  Such could be looked at as a set of theories.

I was making it explicit that I, personally, see your "theory" as flawed.

The thing is, we weren't argueing. You think we were argueing about whether Christians are agnostic or not, even though I said this in my second post:

I don't really care if you attempted to nullify your accusation.  In the initial post (which should be considered the topic of this thread, by convention), you devoted an entire paragraph to attempting to prove through a series of twisted logistics that Christians are agnostic.  This is why I was so strong in making sure that you (and everyone else who reads this) understands that it isn't necessarily the case.

That wasn't a theory, it was just me being a technical ass. I also looked up the definition of "know", and found out I was technically wrong. Too bad it had absolutely nothing to do with my theory, and really nothing to do with disproving the existance of God. That whole first paragraph was just a build-up to the second paragraph, with the exception of that whole agnostic line.

To me, it doesn't matter if the whole paragraph was a "build up."  The whole paragraph revolved around this fundemental aspect: you thought/think that Christians are agnostic.  That's how I read it.  I re-read it, and that's still how I'm reading it.

So, basically, you posted this thread to make sure that there are no absolute proofs for the existence or non-existence of God?  That seems sort of silly to me!  Like I already said, if either of these existed, I don't think this conversation would be at all necessary; they'd be universally known.

[rabbit]

Question: What DO you believe in?

I don't believe in a set religion, nor do I regularly attend a Church or Meeting.  I was born and raised as a Friend.  I basically believe in a connecting force among all living things, regardless of what someone looks like or believes.  Everything has the right to live and be happy.  At the same time I am a very mathematical and logical (again, bad replacement word) person, and I do believe in big bang theory and agree with most of science.  I don't care what people believe in as long as they don't go around fucking with other people (suicide bomber Jihadists, evangelicals anyone?) and trying to a) kill them or b) tell them everything they believe is wrong and if they don't accept your way they are doomed to eternal pain and suffering.  Aside from that, I believe in both reincarnation and heaven and neither and both (it's complicated).

[MyndFyre]

I never said faith is supposed to be logical. By definition, an agnostic is somebody that thinks it's impossible to know whether or not God exists.

I think you have an incomplete definition of agnosticism.  An agnostic person is someone who *either* believes it's impossible to know with certainty that God exists, and/or does not believe it is relevant (simply does not care).

Christians don't know, they strongly believe. No matter how much they think they know, they only strongly believe. Anyways, I'm just trying to be a technical ass here, it doesn't really matter. What I was trying to get across, is that it's impossible to prove God's existance.

I wouldn't disagree with that.  In fact, I think it's a necessary component of Christianity.

I feel that if God does exist, he would make it so it's eventually possible to understand. I believe that if he did not, eventually scientists will not only find things that don't add up when they should, they will eventually be able to prove it.

I think you've said you're a Christian.  Remember the Tower of Babel, where God scattered the languages?  Besides, many of us have come to faith because we *don't* think that things add up the right way, and that in the current framework provided by science, that they *can't*.  That's how I did.

All the Christians and Catholics are psychopaths: "YAY END OF THE WORLD!"  Fucktards (offense meant).

I think you can excuse yourself from posting in this forum ever again. 

YOU CANNOT PROVE THE EXISTANCE OF GOD USING SCRIPTURES OR OTHER RELIGIOUS MATERIAL.

While you really can't prove the existence of God using much of anything at all, Joe's point is still somewhat valid.  Consider this: the Bible teaches that nobody really understood what Jesus meant when he talked about his death and resurrection ("Destroy this temple and I will rebuild it in three days").  We then have two possibilities: the talk and story of Jesus' resurrection was true, in which case I would certainly say his claims to godhood were validated; or, the story was a hoax, in which case the biblical authors wrote a story in which they looked dumb.  Personally, I think that it's much more likely that it was true, that there were thousands of people who in fact did see Jesus after his crucifixion, because I really don't think that something that happened as powerfully as the Christian revolution through Rome could have happened without the truth of the event.  But, again, that's a matter of opinion.

I believe that if a person is good and pure, God won't send them to hell simply because they were a bit skeptical about whether or not God exists, as he isn't exactly out in the open.

I don't really believe that such a person exists.

[Armin]

I feel that if God does exist, he would make it so it's eventually possible to understand. I believe that if he did not, eventually scientists will not only find things that don't add up when they should, they will eventually be able to prove it.

I think you've said you're a Christian.  Remember the Tower of Babel, where God scattered the languages?  Besides, many of us have come to faith because we *don't* think that things add up the right way, and that in the current framework provided by science, that they *can't*.  That's how I did.

I'm actually agnostic, in a way that I can't lie to myself right now and say that I truely believe in God, and that I'm just waiting for some experience or something that will change that, so I don't exactly know what you're talking about with the whole Tower of Babel thing.

Anyways, I'm a little confused with this whole faith thing. Why would God base acceptance into heaven, simply because somebody believes in him, when often times that somebody is an evil corrupt person that was born into Christianity, and they've never actually went through the trouble of second guessing to see if they really believe? Why would God accept them into heaven, and not people that are just morally good people, that weren't able to lie to themselves about Christianity? If for some reason I don't find God in my lifetime, and I die to find that God really does exist, then I'll be just as faithful as everyone else.

I believe that if a person is good and pure, God won't send them to hell simply because they were a bit skeptical about whether or not God exists, as he isn't exactly out in the open.

I don't really believe that such a person exists.

Yeah, I used the wrong words there. I basically meant a person with good morals.

[Sidoh]

Anyways, I'm a little confused with this whole faith thing. Why would God base acceptance into heaven, simply because somebody believes in him, when often times that somebody is an evil corrupt person that was born into Christianity, and they've never actually went through the trouble of second guessing to see if they really believe? Why would God accept them into heaven, and not people that are just morally good people, that weren't able to lie to themselves about Christianity? If for some reason I don't find God in my lifetime, and I die to find that God really does exist, then I'll be just as faithful as everyone else.

That isn't the entirety of what Christianity states it requires for salvation.  There is also absolute penance: you're repentant of every sin you've ever committed.  If you're evil, the chance that you're sincerely repentant for every sin you've ever committed is non-existent, I think.

[Armin]

Add that to my above post then. If I can't lie to myself by saying I believe God exists, and I'm a morally good person that is repentant for every sin I've committed, will I get struck down and sent to hell? If so, why?

[Sidoh]

Add that to my above post then. If I can't lie to myself by saying I believe God exists, and I'm a morally good person that is repentant for every sin I've committed, will I get struck down and sent to hell? If so, why?

Yes, according to Christianity and other similar religions.

Because those who do not believe a reward exists are not worthy to receive it.

[Armin]

So if I tried to believe the reward exists, yet realized I'd be lieing to myself if I did say I believed, I wouldn't be worthy, even though I put forth the effort?

If you say yes to that, then that particular belief of Christianity makes me sick.

[Sidoh]

So if I tried to believe the reward exists, yet realized I'd be lieing to myself if I did say I believed, I wouldn't be worthy, even though I put forth the effort?

More particularly, if you don't believe in Jesus Christ as your savior, salvation is impossible.  As you've probably heard, Christianity states that Jesus perished in order to redeem the sins of every man that lived and will live.  Believing that this didn't happen makes it impossible to accept the reward he provided for you.

Repentence is the "key" required to unlock the unyielding forgiveness that Jesus provided when he died on the cross.  Being repentant of your sins means nothing if you don't believe in the entity that provides forgiveness.

Look at it this way: living a morally correct life is more or less for your own good.  You want to maintain a reputation as a reasonably acceptable, memorable and impacting person.  Being "good" for such a reason can inadvertently be perceived as greed.  It's impossible to selflessly live a good life unless you're doing it for a "higher reason," I think.

If you say yes to that, then that particular belief of Christianity makes me sick.

I'm hoping I effectively clarifed the reasoning for this above.

[Kaleeko]

Look at it this way: living a morally correct life is more or less for your own good. 

Also, in a sort of 'worshipping praise' of the fact that "Hey, Jesus died for me, that's so cool, I think I'm going to be a better person for it!" That's the attitude Christian's /should/ have, because in all honestly, if they don't, they really may not appreciate what God did for them. If they aren't Christian, however, it's good because morally correct people simply pwn people that aren't. To put it bluntly.

Though, this must not be confused with the evil (ebil) idea of works righteousness. Christians aren't good to /be/ saved, because people can't do fucking anything to save themselves. It was all God. Actually, technically, my demonination teaches that you can't even choose to believe in God, you only choose to deny him, because we're all given the innate will to believe in him, we just turn from him because of sin.

I don't have any idea where I was going with all that. I'm just talking.

[Armin]

Actually, technically, my demonination teaches that you can't even choose to believe in God, you only choose to deny him

I like that idea a lot. Can you explain it a bit more, like why is it true, etc?

[MyndFyre]

Actually, technically, my demonination teaches that you can't even choose to believe in God, you only choose to deny him

I like that idea a lot. Can you explain it a bit more, like why is it true, etc?

If you read C.S. Lewis (very big in apologetics), he writes that, really, the fundamental sin of humankind is pride.  It's love for self over love for God.

Pride leads you to do that which God doesn't want for you, because God knows that it's not good for you.

Pride is the driving force behind compelling people to deny God.  Or, more accurately, behind them choosing to deny God.

[Kaleeko]

I kinda suck at explaining, so I'll try my best.

When we're born, we all have sort of an ingrained sense of the fact that God exists, sort of an impulse to believe in Jesus, you could say. Basically, this means that without sin, we would automatically believe in God. There would be nothing more completely natural than to believe in what Jesus did for us. But, because of sin, we're torn from God; actually, at the moment of conception, we're pretty much tainted by sin. Sin, by definition, is seperation from God. Therefore, because of this, we basically are denying our sin when we believe in God, not actually choosing God. God already chose us, and we innately knew God, we just made the choice to seperate ourself from him when we choose not to be Christian.

Yeah, so I'm terrible at explaining. It's also been a while since I've went to one of my dad's bible studies. We went over this pretty in-depth while we were studying Revelation.

[Joe]

Revelation was a pretty awesome book.

Anyhow, God says to "be holy for I am holy". According to sucky dictionaries, "holy" means to be prefect, but sucky dictionaries suck. It means to be seperated from sin, therefore with God. When we're saved we begin the sanctification process in which we become holy (it never finishes though, until we die).

[Sidoh]

Anyhow, God says to "be holy for I am holy". According to sucky dictionaries, "holy" means to be prefect, but sucky dictionaries suck. It means to be seperated from sin, therefore with God. When we're saved we begin the sanctification process in which we become holy (it never finishes though, until we die).

Much more likely due to sucky translation.  If the definition is unambiguous across several distinguished dictionaries, the chance that it is misdefined is very low.

[Kaleeko]

Revelation was a pretty awesome book.

Anyhow, God says to "be holy for I am holy". According to sucky dictionaries, "holy" means to be prefect, but sucky dictionaries suck. It means to be seperated from sin, therefore with God. When we're saved we begin the sanctification process in which we become holy (it never finishes though, until we die).

Revelation is crazy. There are many, many different ways to understand it, and most are more than likely misinterpretations. It's a very sensitive subject, because Revelation, without a lot of careful study, can be completely misread.. And can lead to a lot of.. bad stuff. Yeah.

I believe more in the fact that when we're cleansed from sin, it's all at once. And it's when we ""go to heaven"". Sin taints us. If we're sinful, we're sinful. We're not partly good and partly bad. We're just fucking dirty. Sin is like a disease. We don't say "their throat has the flu". No, "they have the flu". Sure, we may become better people and seem better, but we're still sinful, we're still dirty, and that won't change until Jesus flicks his magic wand, and, bibbity bobbity boo, we get to wear itchy white robes and sing carols for the rest of eternity.

[MyndFyre]

Revelation was a pretty awesome book.

Anyhow, God says to "be holy for I am holy". According to sucky dictionaries, "holy" means to be prefect, but sucky dictionaries suck. It means to be seperated from sin, therefore with God. When we're saved we begin the sanctification process in which we become holy (it never finishes though, until we die).

Revelation is crazy. There are many, many different ways to understand it, and most are more than likely misinterpretations. It's a very sensitive subject, because Revelation, without a lot of careful study, can be completely misread.. And can lead to a lot of.. bad stuff. Yeah.

I believe more in the fact that when we're cleansed from sin, it's all at once. And it's when we ""go to heaven"". Sin taints us. If we're sinful, we're sinful. We're not partly good and partly bad. We're just fucking dirty. Sin is like a disease. We don't say "their throat has the flu". No, "they have the flu". Sure, we may become better people and seem better, but we're still sinful, we're still dirty, and that won't change until Jesus flicks his magic wand, and, bibbity bobbity boo, we get to wear itchy white robes and sing carols for the rest of eternity.

LoL.

My preferred method of interpreting Rev. is this: John saw many things that he described.  What he could not explain, he explained as best as he could with what he did understand.  That means things he described, in certain measure, were like what he said.  Other things were metaphorical.

I think your "cleansed" analysis is correct, but I think the important thing is that, before the "going to heaven" part, we don't become "sinless" in life, but we're no longer accountable to our sin.  No longer being held accountable to it gives us the ability to come before God in a way that we couldn't before Jesus died on the cross. 

It's like the husband or wife who says to the spouse, "I know you're not perfect, and I love you anyway."  (Or, if you're Kaleeko, it's "I know you're not perfect, but I less-than-three you anyway"). 

Joe, good job at explaining what holy meant, although you did it kind of backwards (you said what it doesn't mean), so I'll clarify.  As it's taught these days, to be "holy" means to be "set apart to God."  As Joe said, that means set apart from sin.  We're called to be holy here, but it's impossible; and in light of the teaching that we are not accountable to our sin, we are given holiness through faith.

[Kaleeko]

<3 @ MyndFyre

I have nothing to disagree with what you said. Three cheers for no more pointless arguing! ^^

[MyndFyre]

<3 @ MyndFyre

Hehehehe

I have nothing to disagree with what you said. Three cheers for no more pointless arguing! ^^

Yeah, I didn't think we were that far off.  What I said was really just an extension of what you said.  Good times.

[Armin]

Well, I've given it more thought, and this is where I'm at right now:
I can't lie to myself and say God does exist, and fully believe that Jesus Christ was in fact our savior. So, I'm going to ask him forgiveness for my sins, even though part of my still believes he doesn't exist. This is at least my solution until I do someday can fully believe God's existance. I saw a quote like this in someone's profile, it was like, "I'd much rather die a Christian to find there is no Heaven, than to die a non-believer to find out I'm going to Hell."