Belief in "God" Or Belief in "Right" God

[ToHoldNothing]

A relatively simple question just from the thread title, but I guess I should elaborate slightly in terms of the Exploring Christianity element

It seems like there might be many believers in God, Jesus, Allah, YHWH and variants of each that think that you have to believe in the "right" God and specific things about its nature in order to be saved, though of course there are even disagreements about those between believers in God anyway. Catholics, from a minority perspective perhaps, believe that even deists and pantheists, believing in a singular god, are not believing in the "right" God and are thus still in the wrong even though they're better than heathen nonbelievers like me, lol.

But then, on the other hand, there seem to be many that believe that as long as you believe in a God or even gods, like pagans of a more literal variety, you're on the right track. The problem here is that there isn't necessarily a universal agreement on what "God" means. For the most part, I imagine it means a Creator, a conscious entity and such, like a deity with some consciousness and numinosity, awe inspiring power. But not everyone believes "God" has to be a person at all, but could just believe it is a spiritual force that permeates everything. So in that sense, there's the problem of how to distinguish between people believing in the occult, per se, and people just believing in a general divinity, that happens to be on the track to believing in the Christian God.

So, a poll might be pertinent for this thread. Do you think it is better to believe in the "right" God or believe in that a "God" or "gods" exist in order to be on the path to salvation, so to speak? Or something in between?

 

[drich0150]

It is mandated that we "believe" to the limits of what we have been given/been exposed to. For the majority of the planet we have all been exposed to Christianity in one form or another. It is to this measure of the gospel and what we did with this measure that we are judged.

Believing in a "god" is much less important than being faithful to what you have been given

 

[ToHoldNothing]

So what happens when you are "exposed" to a multitude of conceptions of "God"? Howis one to be "faithful" to a concept that admits of so much diversity of understanding? Not to mention even IF we narrowed this whole discussion to a single God, Christianity already throws a wrench into simplification of that.

I have two books I want to read in the future, one called "God, Discover His Character", describing a God that is quite...detached by Christian standards, possessing immutability, aseity, etc; the other book is "The Openness of God: A Biblical Challenge to the Traditional Understanding of God", which advocates open theism, a God that is powerful, yet permissive of human freedom in the highest sense. Admittedly it is more a minority position, but would it be fairer for me to take one of them on authority without looking at both sides of this particular dichotomy? Not to mention I get conflicting ideas of "God" from people all over this forum, so how am I to be faithful to that?

That's the main issue, faithfulness to what you have been given. It really becomes complicated when you've been "given" so many ideas of "God," you can't genuinely choose any of them because they all are insufficient.

 

[drich0150]

So what happens when you are "exposed" to a multitude of conceptions of "God"? Howis one to be "faithful" to a concept that admits of so much diversity of understanding? Not to mention even IF we narrowed this whole discussion to a single God, Christianity already throws a wrench into simplification of that.

I have two books I want to read in the future, one called "God, Discover His Character", describing a God that is quite...detached by Christian standards, possessing immutability, aseity, etc; the other book is "The Openness of God: A Biblical Challenge to the Traditional Understanding of God", which advocates open theism, a God that is powerful, yet permissive of human freedom in the highest sense. Admittedly it is more a minority position, but would it be fairer for me to take one of them on authority without looking at both sides of this particular dichotomy? Not to mention I get conflicting ideas of "God" from people all over this forum, so how am I to be faithful to that?

That's the main issue, faithfulness to what you have been given. It really becomes complicated when you've been "given" so many ideas of "God," you can't genuinely choose any of them because they all are insufficient.

You are willing to acknowledge the requirement of being faithful to what you are given and yet you are still holding one's faith to an absolute standard. If one is exposed to a multitude of "god's" then He will be judged on His understanding, and exposure to the one true God. Intentionally fogging the issue by trying to absorb as much opposing material as you can will not diminish your initial understanding of the Gospel when you first heard it. Lest you think God a fool, and can confuse Him as you have yourself with you professed absorption of all of these other faiths.

Your Judgment is complete once you have heard the gospel and decided to turn your back on it.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

You are willing to acknowledge the requirement of being faithful to what you are given and yet you are still holding one's faith to an absolute standard. If one is exposed to a multitude of "god's" then He will be judged on His understanding, and exposure to the one true God. Intentionally fogging the issue by trying to absorb as much opposing material as you can will not diminish your initial understanding of the Gospel when you first heard it. Lest you think God a fool, and can confuse Him as you have yourself with you professed absorption of all of these other faiths.

Your Judgment is complete once you have heard the gospel and decided to turn your back on it.

2 Fundamental problems here

First, you are confusing what I understood your use of faithful to mean. I thought it suggested fidelity and consistency of logic and reason, which would imply that I am not to believe something merely to feel good or even justified in any sense, but believe something because it is true. In that sense, I am faithful to what I have learned over many years now about the faiths of the world, which includes Christianity, much to your chagrin. I have taken what I was exposed to and I have concluded that much of it is simply not true and I cannot believe in it.

If by faithful you meant actually believing without any real evidence or simply some good feeling or experience, then you will be sorely disappointed that I had no intention of using that definition of faith.

Secondly, there is an underlying problem of presumption that your one god is the true god. Of course, this can be chalked up to a faith issue in that you hold to it through conviction of your individual experience. I do not think your god a fool, but merely a foolish human concept at best. You are exaggerating and making a specious leap of interpretation from the judgment of a concept to be foolish to personally insulting to a believer or the actual real person represented by some god concept.

Not to mention you presume that my initial interpretation and understanding of Christianity from when I was a teenager is the same interpretation I possess of it now. They are virtually unrelated except as I approached it as an individual in a community.

Of course, since my apostasy around age 18 or so, there can be said to have been a radical change in my perspective towards Christianity compared to my insider position as a twice baptized believer (though the first time is purely out of tradition), so if you even moderately accept that line of argument, you would have to say that there is always a change of perspective as you grow in knowledge/wisdom/experience in relation to any faith, be it the one you were raised in from childhood and only believed in by conformity to the status quo for the most part or other faiths you learn about through genuine academic curiosity and even choose one as more faithful to one's beliefs and one that makes you feel as if you aren't lying to yourself about what is true.

This is where we are at an impasse; you misunderstand what I understood and used faithful as in your expression of being faithful to what you are given and you seem to think that my perspective about Christianity and the gospel is the exact same or resembles my position as a teenager, which is utter nonsense on its face. That would be like me saying your perspective on Christianity is the same as when you were initially exposed to it and could think about it.

Both of us, all of us, change our perspectives on things, mostly due to exposure and contemplation of things on a personal level. I no longer wished to lie to myself about any sort of belief in God, so I removed it from my beliefs about reality and relegated it to concepts I acknowledge others believe in. That's a fair trade, I think

 

[drich0150]

2 Fundamental problems here

First, you are confusing what I understood your use of faithful to mean. I thought it suggested fidelity and consistency of logic and reason, which would imply that I am not to believe something merely to feel good or even justified in any sense, but believe something because it is true. In that sense, I am faithful to what I have learned over many years now about the faiths of the world, which includes Christianity, much to your chagrin. I have taken what I was exposed to and I have concluded that much of it is simply not true and I cannot believe in it.

That is the point of this life and that is your individual right.

If by faithful you meant actually believing without any real evidence or simply some good feeling or experience, then you will be sorely disappointed that I had no intention of using that definition of faith.

No wonder you are so confused. You are still looking to redefine my efforts to fit a preconceived stereotype so that you can dismiss it. If you wanted my definition of faithfulness why not ask for it?

Secondly, there is an underlying problem of presumption that your one god is the true god. Of course, this can be chalked up to a faith issue in that you hold to it through conviction of your individual experience.

How can this be a "faith" issue if you do not yet understand how faith is being used in this thread?

I do not think your god a fool, but merely a foolish human concept at best. You are exaggerating and making a specious leap of interpretation from the judgment of a concept to be foolish to personally insulting to a believer or the actual real person represented by some god concept.[/

Why would you of all people take any offense of someone taking a fling leap? Do you not remember the golden rule? So long as you will take these liberties, know that I will in turn do the same.

Not to mention you presume that my initial interpretation and understanding of Christianity from when I was a teenager is the same interpretation I possess of it now. They are virtually unrelated except as I approached it as an individual in a community.

I assume nothing. I merely pointed out that because you at one time had an understanding of the Gospel you will be held account to it. (Whether you believe as you once did or not, is irrelevant)


(This was at the whole "we are at an impasse" part.) Your beliefs now have nothing to do with how you will be held accountable at your judgment. What makes me laugh is how quickly you grasped at what you thought to be a way to quickly end this conversation in your favor.. All because Again, and again your prideful self righteousness will not allow you to ask a simple question from time to time. You "think" you know what is being said but as i have pointed out over and over. You only know of tired old stereotypes that have little merit in true Christianity.

Do you know the difference between a foolish man and a wise one? Most foolish men know themselves to be wise, and need not ask a question.

While All wise men know themselves to truly be fools and constantly ask questions so that they are able to maintain proper prospective.

Now, How many questions have you asked? (Know a challenge is not a question)

Both of us, all of us, change our perspectives on things, mostly due to exposure and contemplation of things on a personal level. I no longer wished to lie to myself about any sort of belief in God, so I removed it from my beliefs about reality and relegated it to concepts I acknowledge others believe in. That's a fair trade, I think

Then trade away! (It is your right)

 

[ToHoldNothing]

That is the point of this life and that is your individual right.

So you think you're being faithful in the sense of reason and logic? That's a whole other issue entirely, but apparently we aren't completely at odds in terms of the use you intended with faithful in terms of the root fides, but not fides as in religious faith, but fides as in loyalty, correct?

No wonder you are so confused. You are still looking to redefine my efforts to fit a preconceived stereotype so that you can dismiss it. If you wanted my definition of faithfulness why not ask for it?

By all means, tell me. You didn't make it clear, so I admittedly read it in my own particular way. If I was mistaken, by all means correct me.

How can this be a "faith" issue if you do not yet understand how faith is being used in this thread?

That's where we start, then. We have different understandings of even the word faith, along with faithful. I don't view faith in the same way I view trust as much as they are commonly conflated with each other.

Why would you of all people take any offense of someone taking a fling leap? Do you not remember the golden rule? So long as you will take these liberties, know that I will in turn do the same.

There are certain liberties that can be taken to extremes and make people foolish, therefore I would take it upon myself to critique people the same way I would want people to critique me. People shouldn't just believe things and leave it at that, I didn't, so I don't want others to just stop questioning and investigating beliefs.

I am in no way opposed to your criticism, but you seem to take it personally, when it is just what I do to make sure people are not being gullible and so open minded they leave their brains at the door when talking about religion, as if it's immune to criticism as some special thing.

I assume nothing. I merely pointed out that because you at one time had an understanding of the Gospel you will be held account to it. (Whether you believe as you once did or not, is irrelevant)

So your god judges me by that singular interpretation/understanding of the gospel I had as a teenager,which is incorrect in many cases? That's like judging someone at a sport the first two weeks they do it, of course they're going to look foolish and not know what they're doing. Heck, you can apply that same logic to someone studying a new subject and you'll look equally foolish. You cannot judge someone by a singular state of understanding of something unless you expect those people to just stay rooted in that tradition without leaving, which is naive. So in turn, I've basically called your god, hypothetically, naive.

Your beliefs now have nothing to do with how you will be held accountable at your judgment. What makes me laugh is how quickly you grasped at what you thought to be a way to quickly end this conversation in your favor.. All because Again, and again your prideful self righteousness will not allow you to ask a simple question from time to time. You "think" you know what is being said but as i have pointed out over and over. You only know of tired old stereotypes that have little merit in true Christianity.

So you say I will be held accountable for a state of ignorance I was in as a teenager as opposed to a state now as an adult? What utter rubbish. That's judging someone for choosing to think outside the little box they were raised in and calling it just.

I in no way wanted to quickly end this conversation, but on the contrary, I wanted to progress it. True Christianity is a varied term to begin with. People you'd call heretics or false prophets would just as easily call themselves true Christians as you yourself seem to call yourself a true Christian. There is no true Christianity objectively, only traditionally.

Do you know the difference between a foolish man and a wise one? Most foolish men know themselves to be wise, and need not ask a question.

I am more than willing to ask the questions, but you seem to not want to even start the discussion in a way that would make you seem even moderately intelligent. You just spout something and think everyone will just understand your meaning.

Where is the harm in you taking some time to explain your terms from the start instead of prolonging the discussion with cryptic phrases I have to wade through and make guesses at what you might mean with you qualifying after the fact because you refuse to be straightforward with the Christian beliefs you are so confident about.

While All wise men know themselves to truly be fools and constantly ask questions so that they are able to maintain proper prospective.

I do not deny I am ignorant, but constantly asking questions would not make for a fruitful discussion without contributing some of my own perspective. By all means, I have asked you questions, but you don't seem to recognize them as such.

Now, How many questions have you asked? (Know a challenge is not a question)

At least 2 or three. But just so you don't claim that I was just challenging you, here they are in basic format.

What do you mean by faithfulness?
What do you mean by faith?
What do you mean when you say that I'll be held accountable in terms of my understanding of the Gospel years ago? Why will I not be held accountable for the progression of my understanding of the Gospel over many years?

Then trade away! (It is your right)

But it does not make for an amiable relationship for you to think I have condemned myself to hell just because you think I'm a selfish, prideful individual as opposed to it partly being the fault of others in tandem with my own ignorance that will never be completely abated, since we are always, one might say, in a state of ignorance about things, no matter how much we learn about them.

 

[Cuddles333]

I voted that it is better that one believe in some deity than none at all. My reason may be selfishly motivated because I think it would be the beginning of that person's understanding of metaphysical accountability in all situations of life.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

Kind of like a prostitute using a condom to prevent HIV/etc so that they can eventually recognize accountabilty to God in some parallel way? Didn't know others thought like Pope Benedict, lol. It's straightforward, but perhaps drich answered Other, which is fine too.

 

[solarwave]

I was going to say that it is better to believe in some God rather than no God on the thinking that a spirtual Hindu (for example) could be closer to God than the average Christian. On the other hand there many be atheists who are spiritual in a sense too, moving closer to perfect morality and feelings of oneness with the human race and the foundations of reality.

So where someone is going is perhaps more important than where someone is. To pursue truth and goodness and have a change in heart could be more important to salvation than how these things are expressed in religious doctrines. Of course some doctrines will be more true than others and so are better to be believed.

I'm not sure if that answers your question.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

I was going to say that it is better to believe in some God rather than no God on the thinking that a spirtual Hindu (for example) could be closer to God than the average Christian. On the other hand there many be atheists who are spiritual in a sense too, moving closer to perfect morality and feelings of oneness with the human race and the foundations of reality.

So where someone is going is perhaps more important than where someone is. To pursue truth and goodness and have a change in heart could be more important to salvation than how these things are expressed in religious doctrines. Of course some doctrines will be more true than others and so are better to be believed.

I'm not sure if that answers your question.

It sounds like you're leaning more towards the first option, believing in God,but then you reflect an other sort of answer in that it is more important that a person has good goals as opposed to simply their belief or lack thereof in a God as the primary consideration. It's certainly something that has some flexibility, but doesn't necessarily violate your adherence to Christian exclusivism in some sense. Perhaps drich disagrees? Either way, I think I've heard this sympathy at times, such as C.S. Lewis for one example. Only problem seems to be suggesting that there are somehow truer religions than others when they are all just human endeavors at heart, even Christianity, I dare to say.

 

[salida]

Jesus said that he is the way truth and light -period. Its a popular myth that many roads lead to God-this isn't biblical.

 

[solarwave]

It sounds like you're leaning more towards the first option, believing in God,but then you reflect an other sort of answer in that it is more important that a person has good goals as opposed to simply their belief or lack thereof in a God as the primary consideration.

I would say that it is important to believe in the divine (obviously because I believe it) but that the path to salvation is more likely found in heart faith rather than head faith. I could be very wrong of couse.

It's certainly something that has some flexibility, but doesn't necessarily violate your adherence to Christian exclusivism in some sense.

What do you mean by exclusivism, as I would say I'm more of an inclusivist, but not pluralist.

Either way, I think I've heard this sympathy at times, such as C.S. Lewis for one example. Only problem seems to be suggesting that there are somehow truer religions than others when they are all just human endeavors at heart, even Christianity, I dare to say.

Well if there is no personal God then the eastern religions are more true than the Abrahamic ones. If the divine exists then some religions will represent the truth more than others. If Jesus rose from the dead and was a finite form of God then Christianity could be said to be more true.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

Jesus said that he is the way truth and light -period. Its a popular myth that many roads lead to God-this isn't biblical.

No one was arguing whether universalism was true or not. There's no reason to bring in a red herring to prove your point.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

I would say that it is important to believe in the divine (obviously because I believe it) but that the path to salvation is more likely found in heart faith rather than head faith. I could be very wrong of couse.

Head faith is practically a contradiction in terms. But I can see what you mean; that salvation is found through wisdom, not knowledge, so to speak.

What do you mean by exclusivism, as I would say I'm more of an inclusivist, but not pluralist.

Inclusivism is a stronger position than pluralism. Pluralism accepts the existence of other beliefs without believing that they are necessarily true; inclusivism accepts other beliefs as true in general, if I understand it right. Exclusivism says only one belief is true.

Well if there is no personal God then the eastern religions are more true than the Abrahamic ones. If the divine exists then some religions will represent the truth more than others. If Jesus rose from the dead and was a finite form of God then Christianity could be said to be more true.

Not all Eastern religions disbelieve in a personal God of sorts, though Hinduism can believe in polytheism, henotheism, monotheism (rarely, i think), pantheism and even atheism (in equally rare circumstances).

If Jesus rose from the dead, that doesn't mean Christianity is necessarily true. His resurrection could have had other circumstances surrounding it besides a creator god. But you added on that extra premise which seems to just try to narrow down the circumstances to fit that presumption, which is a questionable line of argument.

And if the divine exists, it doesn't necessarily follow that religions that believe in the divine are more true. The divine could exist, but could have nothing to do with being right or wrong, but just exist as part of the world in a different sense, not unlike the devas in Hinduism and Buddhism. They do not save you, they are just as much in samsara as you are.

 

[solarwave]

Head faith is practically a contradiction in terms. But I can see what you mean; that salvation is found through wisdom, not knowledge, so to speak.

Yeah, I would say head faith was salvation by belief (eg: That Jesus was the Son of God) but heart faith is more like having your morals and desires fixed on the right place (eg: sanctification, becoming more Christ-like). More of a process than something to grab and hold on to.

Inclusivism is a stronger position than pluralism. Pluralism accepts the existence of other beliefs without believing that they are necessarily true; inclusivism accepts other beliefs as true in general, if I understand it right. Exclusivism says only one belief is true.

The way I understood these words (in terms of salvation) is that Exclusivism is where you must be part of the religion to be saved (eg: belief in Christ being necessary), Inclusivism would be where one religion is mostly true but being part of that religion isn't necessary for salvation (eg: People unknowingly have faith in Christ) and Puralism would be where all religions equally lead to salvation.

Not all Eastern religions disbelieve in a personal God of sorts, though Hinduism can believe in polytheism, henotheism, monotheism (rarely, i think), pantheism and even atheism (in equally rare circumstances).

I was just using Eastern religions as an example because they tend to believe in a personal God less than Abrahamic ones. To be honest I only know the very basics about religions other than Christianity.

If Jesus rose from the dead, that doesn't mean Christianity is necessarily true. His resurrection could have had other circumstances surrounding it besides a creator god. But you added on that extra premise which seems to just try to narrow down the circumstances to fit that presumption, which is a questionable line of argument.

Like aliens? Still it wouldn't be crazy to think Christianity was true if Jesus rose from the dead. It does make more sense than aliens to me.

And if the divine exists, it doesn't necessarily follow that religions that believe in the divine are more true. The divine could exist, but could have nothing to do with being right or wrong, but just exist as part of the world in a different sense, not unlike the devas in Hinduism and Buddhism. They do not save you, they are just as much in samsara as you are.

I wouldn't call another creature God though, such as devas. I would think what ever Hindus and Buddhists believe the ultimate reality or final state is to be closer to God. Am I right in thinking that in the final release in Hinduism the soul becomes one with the divine?

 

[ToHoldNothing]

Yeah, I would say head faith was salvation by belief (eg: That Jesus was the Son of God) but heart faith is more like having your morals and desires fixed on the right place (eg: sanctification, becoming more Christ-like). More of a process than something to grab and hold on to.

Belief in God can of course be alleged to be prone to hypocrisy, speaking to God with your lips, not your heart. Orienting your heart to God would be the latter, belief ON God as Luther put it.

The way I understood these words (in terms of salvation) is that Exclusivism is where you must be part of the religion to be saved (eg: belief in Christ being necessary), Inclusivism would be where one religion is mostly true but being part of that religion isn't necessary for salvation (eg: People unknowingly have faith in Christ) and Puralism would be where all religions equally lead to salvation.

It's tricky. Pluralism doesn't seem to make that claim if we equate it with religious tolerance. Inclusivism is something more like universalism one might claim. Everything leads to God in some sense. And Exclusivism is moreso claiming you have to believe certain things, not that you have to be part of one religion in particular.

I was just using Eastern religions as an example because they tend to believe in a personal God less than Abrahamic ones. To be honest I only know the very basics about religions other than Christianity.

Western religions might be said to have tendencies to not believe in personal Gods either, such as Deism as a belief, polytheism, Wicca, Asatru, etc.

Like aliens? Still it wouldn't be crazy to think Christianity was true if Jesus rose from the dead. It does make more sense than aliens to me.

Actually, it still would be questionable because the claims of Christianity are twofold: ethical and soteriological. The ethical ones are more easily subject to philosophical inquiry. The soteriological ones are practically a matter of personal faith and conviction and are even subject to disagreement among believers as one can probably see on the Christian only boards.

The sensibility of something doesn't affect whether something is true or not. If, in fact, Jesus was resurrected by something closer to the Greek Gods, like Asclepius, that doesn't get negated by you thinking it "makes more sense" that Jesus was resurrected by God. No more than you saying it makes more sense for the sky to be blue because there's coloring in the atmosphere, as opposed to scientific observations of light refraction in relation to atmosphere chemistry.

I wouldn't call another creature God though, such as devas. I would think what ever Hindus and Buddhists believe the ultimate reality or final state is to be closer to God. Am I right in thinking that in the final release in Hinduism the soul becomes one with the divine?

God and gods are distinct terms, I agree. In Moksha, yes, Hindus would tend to believe that you become one with the divine, which is one, but many in its manifestations or avatars. So in that sense, Hinduism isn't too far off, it merely believes something more of a minority position in Christianity, such as Modalism, where God has different modes, but is still singular, getting around the difficulties of Trinitarianism.

Buddhism doesn't recognize any supreme conscious divinity, though. Immensely powerful, perhaps, but not anything that can affect your salvation/enlightenment. Similarly in Hinduism, they're below the highest manifestations of Brahman.

 

[Sarcalogos Deus]

I picked other, but I'm more in line with the first option with some stipulations. Faith in Christ is the only way to be saved, but others can be saved depending on their exposure to the gospel. For instance, every member of an African tribe that has had no access to the outside world for hundreds of years can achieve salvation. But they can only achieve it because they have had no access to the gospel; so they will be judged according to how faithful they have been to the law that is written on the heart's of all men.