Why do some theists spend so much time trying to prove their particular god exists? There are You Tube vids, blogs and all sorts of theist sites online proclaiming evidence that their god exists.
Why would an omnipotent, omniscient god, who demands faith, blind faith, blind, death-defying faith, in exchange for life eternal later and miraculous powers now, leave undeniable evidence of his existence for people to just stumble over? He’d be defeating his own purpose, no?
Evidence and proof destroy the need for faith.
So why this need to emphatically prove his existence?
Seems to me like they don’t have enough faith.
Oh, and seasons greetings. Festivus for the rest of us!
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
I think if it mattered at all to this god whether or not he had a relationship with his creations and whether or not they followed him into eternal bliss that he would make his existence well known and irrefutable. I mean, he should be expected to correct those who have the wrong image of him, the wrong name, the wrong rituals and there should be no-one who could, in their right and honest mind, say that he does not exist.
What we actually see however looks exactly like we would expect it to look if humans made stuff up and ideas merged and separated forming countless religious followings and the many fields of science closing the gaps for this elusive god to reside in. Evidence for is nil. Evidence against is tremendous.
We would also expect humans to defend the beliefs they were indoctrinated into with a vengeance as a result. And, as you pointed out, I think we're seeing just that.
What if believing that He exists, is the least important fact that this God is concerned about? How would that change things?
John 61X Breezy: "What if believing that He exists, is the least important fact"
Then heaven would be full of atheists watching Christians burn in hell.
Isn't that what scripture says lol. Many that shout "Lord, Lord" will be left out, and many that didn't know they were doing Gods will, will be let in.
@John 61X Breezy: "many that didn't know they were doing Gods will be let in"
Well that's a load off! LOL. I get to sit on a cloud and watch all the money-grubbing televangelists and hate-filled fundamentalists dance on the end of pitchforks
That's what Christ was saying half the time He spoke. To the chief priest and elders, which are basically the equivalent of today's Pope, priests and pastors, He said: "Truly I tell you, the tax collectors and the prostitutes are entering the kingdom of God ahead of you" (Matt 21:31).
I'm sure you can think of other examples.
Sorry John, actually Jesus claims the publicans and the harlots are entering the kingdom of God ahead of the chief priests because they believed what John preached, not because they were basically good people.
Matt 21:32 For John came unto you in the way of righteousness and ye believed him not: but the publicans and the harlots believed him and ye, when ye had seen it, repented not afterward, that ye might believe him.
Those priests who did not believe John still get to go to heaven but not before the publicans and harlots who did believe. No non believers involved here and belief is still the main issue.
John 6IX Breezy,
Several of Yeshua's ancestors were hookers. And he had a tax collector as one of his apostles. He had promised him that he would sit on a throne and get to judge the twelve tribes of Israel. So he had to stand up for his folks.
I'm aware of that lineage: born of sinners, to save sinners.
John I think you will find that the claim that tax collectors and prostitutes will go to heaven comes with the caveat that they have to acknowledge god or Jesus or both first.
I don't recall coming across anything in the bible suggesting people getting to heaven for just being 'good people'.
There has always been an insistence for belief in either Jesus or god or both, and some stern assurances that no entry will be possible without it.
Pope Francis expressed his opinion that good decent people will be allowed into heaven because his god is so benevolently loving, but that was only his opinion. I have not read his actual speech but no scripture references were given.
See Matthew 7:21, Matthew 25:31-46 and Romans 2:12-16.
Thanks for the references. With all respect I don’t think they explain much about non-believers getting into heaven without acknowledging god.
Matthew 7:21
“Not everyone that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he who doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven."
This does not necessarily point to non-believers. The 'will of my Father" would include "worshiping no other gods before me"...or at the very least "worshipping me."
This verse and 23 and 24 refer to those who claim to have followed him and done works in his name.
There is no reference to non-believers, only to those who claim to be worthy and why would they make such a claim unless they professed to believed in him.
Matthew 25:31-46
This is a description of how the Son of Man will dispense rewards for performing very charitable deeds and punished for not. None who inherit heaven or who go to hell are described as non believers. Those who are heaven bound are in fact described as "blessed of my Father", which seems to me proof they believed in god and have already been prejudged.
Romans 2:12-16
All of Romans 2 is written by Paul and addressed to fellow believers about how they should live their lives under god and it begins with
“I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service.”
The entire chapter is addressed to the already believing choir. There is no suggestion that non-believers can go to heaven even if they don’t believe in the one true god.
The reference to “holy” is notable. Before anything could enter the presence or proximity of god in the tabernacle it had to be rendered ‘holy’, usually by a simple purification act. This doesn't suggest people who don’t believe in god or if they lived good lives or not.
I do appreciate these exchanges. I look forward to more.
1. The purpose of the tax collector verse was a response to Algebe's comment. He described a situation in which fundamentalist Christians are lost, and atheists are saved. The verse parallels that sentiment, though obviously not perfectly. The verse was not meant to illustrate the broader conversation we're having. Its worth noting however that the "belief" espoused in the verse, is different from the belief we're discussing. It's not the belief in God's existence. It's believing what John was preaching, which involves righteousness and repentance of sins, terms descriptive of behavior.
2. I think you're also misunderstanding the intent of the verses you responded to here, perhaps that's because I didn't really explain. If you're looking for atheists to be mentioned, you're not going to find that explicitly. What you'll find is a more general description of people that are not practicing Jews or Christians; atheists would fall under that category. My purpose with Matt 7 was to show that believing God exists does very little. Those that say "Lord, Lord" not only believe His existence, but probably think they're doing His will, yet He calls them evildoers.
Worshipping no other gods is a part of His will, but these people are excused by their ignorance. Far more important to God is how they treat others. The general sentiment being, that if we cannot love the people we can see, how can we possibly love a God whom we haven't seen (1 John 4:20). He doesn't need more people that have no other gods, claim to worship Him, and completely disregard their fellow humans.
I don't want to inundate you with verses, but notice what Jesus says in the story about the Centurion (who wasn't part of God's 'people'): "Truly I say to you that many will come from the east and the west, and will take their places at the feast with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven. But the subjects of the kingdom will be thrown outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth” (Matt 8:11).
The verse is literally suggesting that many who call themselves believers will not be saved, whereas those who belong to other nations, and other religions, from east to west, will fill Heaven.
3. I think you misread the verse from Romans given that the portion you quoted is from Romans 12, not Romans 2. If you did read the wrong section, and don't mind reading Romans 2 again, read verses 12-29. I think they do a great job of explaining what I'm saying. Keep in mind that Jews essentially describe believers, and Gentiles describe nonbelievers or believers of other religions.
Yes, sorry about the Romans reference. I have to say your bible knowledge is really good and I could stand to learn quite a bit from you.
I do understand your emphasis about salvation. Long ago I was once a christian and led bible studies and prayer meetings etc so its not like any of this new to me. But salvation is a NT idea which was built on the OT emphasis of faith and belief.
I still maintain that faith is at the heart of christianity, judaism and islam and any other religion, with or without salvation.
In Exodus god led Moses and the Israelites around the Sinai for 40 years waiting for the original Exodians to die off so that they would not see the Promised Land as a punishment for their lack of constant faith and then they were also written out of the book of life to boot. I think if the christian god is constant, he should be seen to consider faith very important.
No, I wasn't looking for the word 'atheist' and that was my point, in the bible it remains a matter of no faith, no salvation.
I still respect your position and I understand that you believe people who live decent lives can still get to heaven. It was a concept that was bandied about 40 years ago when I used to go to church and the consensus then was divided. It remains a matter of interpretation, for on several blogs I read researching this thread the verdict is still divided.
Some folks say absolutely no salvation without first acknowledging god, to kinder hearts like yourself who think there are ways around it. Even the Catholics will admit to a very slim chance of an atheist being able to get into heaven, by some very Roman legal interpretation but they mumble on that it all needs to be considered on a case by case basis.
I did read Romans 2 12:29.
I am not convinced that this reference supports your case,
The author, Paul, is addressing the early christians in Rome and he is still arguing the case to excuse Gentiles from having to fulfil the Mosaic law which includes circumcision, which was his idea because he wanted to convert all of the Gentiles while leaving the original 12 Apostles to bother about converting the Jews.
While he champions the Gentiles whose morality mirrors Mosaic law, I believe he is still referring to christian converts some of whom were Jewish, the ones he spent his life trying to recruit. I really cant accept he was referring to non religious people cause there would have been precious few in that age, nor can I accept he is referring to those who worshipped other gods. Paul used to vigorously condemn fellow christians as blasphemers, evil and ungodly for opposing 'his gospel' (verse 16 is famous for the "my gospel" revelation.) so for him to be suggesting non beleivers of any ilk could be saved without acknowledging god first is pretty slim.
John great having this exchange. Its good to be able to get to discuss these important matters. I live in a country where religion is mostly irrelevant or rigidly defended and I don't have an outlet for such discussions. Thanks for your time and involvement. I look forward to more.
And Merry Christmas to you and yours.
1. Faith is important, perhaps the most important thing. But faith is the act of trusting the God you already believe exists, not the method by which you come to believe He exists. Your story of Israel wandering in the wilderness is a great example. They already knew God existed. They saw the plagues. They saw the Red Sea part. Heard HIs voice in Sinai. They had all the evidence in the world. Their lack of faith refers to their lack of trust in God, not lack of belief in His existence. They murmured that God brought them out to die.
Faith is a NT word, not an OT word. The act of trusting God is found all throughout the Bible, but the actual word faith is found only in the NT not the OT.
2. I do think it'll be a case by case decision, why else would there be a final judgement if not to judge each case individually? That said, I think most will agree that no man can save himself, not by faith or by works. Christ is the one who does the saving. What man can do is reject that salvation, or trust it. Faith is the act of trusting God with our salvation, and works is how you demonstrate that faith. Its all one step at a time though. If you don't believe God exists, then you can't possibly be judged that way: "I gave you milk, not solid food, for you were not yet ready for it. Indeed, you are still not ready" (1 Cor. 3:2).
Here's a verse that implies we are each judged individually based on what we know and do:
"That servant who knows his master’s will but does not get ready or follow his instructions will be beaten with many blows. But the one who unknowingly does things worthy of punishment will be beaten with few blows. From everyone who has been given much, much will be required; and from him who has been entrusted with much, even more will be demanded" (Luke 12:47).
3. I agree Romans is addressed to believers, but I don't think what he is only talking about the Mosaic laws alone. Evident by the fact that he specifically mentions stealing, adultery, and worship of idols, which are three of the Ten Commandments.
By definition a Gentile is a non-Jewish person. They are Greeks, Romans, and people that most certainly had other gods. Most of the great Greek philosophers lived before Christ, and they were responsible for turning divine interpretations into natural explanations. So I'm sure there were some among the Greeks without religion. I don't think the verse is about converts necessarily, its much deeper. He is saying that Jews won't be saved for being Jews, and Gentiles won't be lost for being Gentiles, they'll all be judged by their own thoughts and actions. A modern application would imply that Christians won't be saved for being Christians, and non-Christians won't be lost because they're not Christians. God doesn't care about labels.
The most important part is this: "They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them."
That sounds like a concept that can be universally applied. If your conscious is clean, and you tried to live a good life and had reasons for not believing in God, then your own conscious will defend you. Likewise, if you're lying to yourself, your own conscious will accuse you. Some of these verses may not be perfect parallels of what I'm saying, but as a whole you can see how they leave the door open to it.
Heh; a while back you told us gentiles were non-Christians.
I still did: "A modern application would imply that Christians won't be saved for being Christians, and non-Christians won't be lost because they're not Christians."
@Breezy: How do you think it would change things? And (assuming we are discussing Yahweh), how would you explain his lack of concern that people believe in him considering all the trouble he (supposedly) went through sending his son down for the express purpose of giving us a savior to believe in?
Ok, so if God exists, I would expect him to have a deeper understanding of the problem than us. We're told that his thoughts are above our thoughts like the heavens are above the earth.
Now, aren't all the angels that fell aware that God exists? How useful is that knowledge to them? Didn't Judas believe Jesus was the son of God? Did that stop him from betraying him? Didn't Adam know him and disobey? Better yet look how many Christians believe, and do things that the rest of the world is ashamed of.
Believing God exists is the most useless bit of knowledge. It doesn't get you into heaven and it doesn't make you holy.
I really don't think it'd have much of an effect. If, however, God was completely unconcerned, and every God was unconcerned with individuals believing in them, things would be vastly different. If belief is not an issue in any culture, proselytizing and religious terrorism instantly goes away. If all the members of the WBC didn't think that people who don't believe exactly as they do and worship the same God were subhuman, because their God didn't care about belief, then I hardly think they'd be known as the largest hate group in the west.
The gospel, that we're supposed to be taking to the world, is not that God exists, but that we've all been given forgiveness. That's where the focus is.
@ breezy :
If he wasn't concerned with belief in him... Then he doesn't want a relationship with anyone and, in that case, not our problem. If we do we do, if we don't we don't. And if he's not concerned with it to the point of making the question of his existence so unanswerable and will then punish us for disbelief then he's just a cunt.
And then all the religions of the world would be rendered pointless and worship, futile.
The point is, it doesn't really matter because he most probably does not exist but in the imaginations of some very gullible, abstract thinking apes.
Ok, how about this. I said belief in his existence is the least important fact to God. That would imply there are more important things to him concerning us.
If you were God, what would those more important things be?
Exactly the same... If he doesn't care neither do I. Mind over matter... I don't mind, he don't matter.
Really though, belief has to precede everything else. I'm the King of the entire USA. Everything, I have been for 8 years now. The problem is no one believes me... It's really hard to get people to follow my laws too, it's sort of a mess.
I don't think you're seeing the bigger picture, which is why you couldn't really answer my question.
The narrative of Scripture is simple: Mankind has fallen, there is evil in the world, and God wants to save us. How do you make evil people good again? Well we're told the first step was atonement, someone stepped in and paid off the debt we owed. The second step, would logically be getting us to stop going into debt again.
Great, now, you think belief precedes everything else. How so? Will knowing God exists magically turn bad people into a good people? Clearly it won't. Scripture also lets us know that God sees through our hypocrisy, so faking to be good for fear of the consequences or for lust of the reward, will almost certainly not work in your favor. In fact, there may be safety in ignorance, because to truly be aware of God's existence, and continue to live as we do, is beyond self-incriminating. We can still plea ignorance while we have it: "So whoever knows the right thing to do and fails to do it, for him it is sin" "For it would have been better for them never to have known the way of righteousness than after knowing it to turn back from the holy commandment delivered to them" (James 4:17; 2 Pet. 2:21).
God doesn't gain anything by "hiding" either and I don't believe He does. But its clear nothing is gained by revealing Himself. Keep in mind I'm Christian, so from my perspective He already has revealed Himself. Its interesting that despite the many miracles Jesus is claimed to have done, He still understood the uselessness of it all: "If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead" (Luke 16:31).
So my question again is, if you were God, how would you go about saving humanity from themselves?
To address the last first:
I would have started the while thing differently.
Everything that happens in a world created by an omnipotent and omniscient being is necessarily the will of that creator. If he creates someone and he knows everything they're ever going to do then he created those actions. There is no free will, so it doesn't matter what that someone thinks they are doing right or wrong... In fact they aren't really even thinking... It's the creator's thoughts because he created everything. Unless we remove the omniscience from this creator, in which case we can then have free will. Actually, we'd have to remove omnipotence as well, because with all the power he could endow himself with all the knowledge, and since we want free will we can't have this. So we have free will, what's the purpose of all this? A test? Why does 80 or so years on one planet get to dictate all eternity thereafter?
Okay, back to the point... Are you implying that it not only doesn't matter, but is probably better for you if you don't believe in him?
If not, then I'm not sure what you're saying.
If so, then... Good. I've got nothing to worry about whether I'm right or wrong.
To likewise address the last first:
That is what I'm saying in part. Keep the end goal in mind, turning bad people good. Whether its better for you not to know, depends on you. However, there's a reason why the gospel is preached. Ignorance might keep you from culpability, but knowledge enables you to do good. Teaching the gospel is still important. Its just that the focus of the gospel is not God's existence, but God's forgiveness and method to do good.
Now, I agree that all events in a created world, are the will of the creator. But are they his direct will, or a consequence of them? I tend to find the notion of omnipotence and omniscience useless. They're more philosophical than scriptural. They're helpful in describing God, but not at all helpful in understanding Him. I view them as describing the highest possible status in each, not a limitless possession of each. I don't see that as detracting from His godhood. I see that as preventing people from illogical and contradictory conclusions: "Can God make a rock so big that He can't move?"
I do think Scripture is clear that mankind was made with the ability to decide and choose their own behavior. That would be God's direct will. The consequences of that, is the possibility of choosing bad over good. Clearly God was aware of that possibility, just like we are aware of that possibility, every time we choose to have children of our own. So you can throw out the notion of omniscience and omnipotence in my opinion. We don't even understand the concept of time well enough to have a meaningful discussion on God's omniscience.
What's the purpose of all this? Not to be on one planet for 80 years and die. God clearly created mankind to live forever. Don't forget twhere we are now is supposed to be a consequence of evil. So for the time being, the purpose of all this, is to get us back to how things were in the beginning. So how does God get us there?
I never thought I'd say this, but, I'm glad to be arguing with you again; some of the recent contestants have been insufferable.
Okay, so we tangendentally agree on all points except this: that I don't believe the mythology is real. Not even probable. According to you, if I'm wrong I might be all right, but according to others belief in god is of utmost importance and all the non-believers will be tormented. I don't care what they say, of course, cause I call bullshit on the whole thing anyway.
It almost sounds like you touched on the moral argument... But I won't touch that here.
Anyway, I must be off to work.
John 6IX Breezy,
"If you were God, what would those more important things be?"
Yahweh loves animal fat, animal sacrifices, and the aroma of burning flesh. And break a donkey's neck every once in a while.
why would some all powerful god thats so full of him self be so hard to find in the first place. Showing off sounds like it would be that D bags #1 hobby when he isnt mass murdering people for not dick riding him
Pages