If I am wrong about my beliefs - there is NO RISK for me

[BobRyan]

Isn't that bit pointless since you could go through all of thousands of religions past and present and whatever points of faith they might have and "some risk" might exist at rejecting any of their claims ?

I don't think that is the case.

For example -- lets take the pre-trib rapture.

I find that the Bible says - the rapture is post-trib and the 1000 year millennium has the saints being with Christ - in heaven.

But let's suppose for the sake of an objective test that I am wrong and the real truth is that a pre-trib rapture is correct.

Either way I am supposed to accept Christ as my savior "today". So what happens to me when "tomorrow" (which is clearly before the coming tribulation) I am suddenly and very unexpectedly raptured to heaven? The downside for me is "zero". I have no problem -- I just find myself in heaven with Christ surrounded by angels and having a great time long before my current POV would have said this should happen.

There are many differences that end up just like that - where rejecting whatever the other guy says has no downside at all if it turns out the other guy is correct and I am wrong.

 

[Homeowner]

I don't think that is the case.

For example -- lets take the pre-trib rapture.

I think that rapture is post-trib and the 1000 year millennium has the saints being with Christ - in heaven.

But let's suppose for the sake of an objective test that I am wrong and the real truth is that a pre-trib rapture is correct.

Either way I am supposed to accept Christ as my savior "today". So what happens to me when "tomorrow" which is long before the coming tribulation I am suddenly and very unexpectedly raptured to heaven? The downside for me is "zero". I have no problem -- I just find myself in heaven with Christ surrounded by angels and having a great time.

There are many differences that end up just like that - where rejecting whatever the other guy says has no downside at all if it turns out the other guy is correct.

What if it is Zeus and the question asked is why didn't you upheld the supremacy of Greek gods while you were alive ? And consequences would be a ferry trip to Hades.

Considering the thousands of other religions out there past and present some misunderstanding of tribulation would statistically seem to be a quite small saving grace indeed.

 

[BobRyan]

What if it is Zeus and the question asked is why didn't you upheld the supremacy of Greek gods while you were alive ? And consequences would be a ferry trip to Hades.

I agree that there exists something out there where not accepting the view they propose actually has a down side.

But it is not atheism, it is not Hinduism, it is not Buddhism, and for most cases it is not a given Christian denomination outside of my own - as in all Christian denominations one is supposed to accept Christ as Savior.

But I bring this up because in the real historic "real-life" examples we have in the Bible - there was always a downside to rejecting the true message of warning.

1. A real "downside" at the flood for rejecting Noah.
2. A real "downside" in the NT for rejecting Christ as Messiah.
3. At the end of time "a real downside" for rejecting what the Bible said will happen.

God is infinite and HE could certainly have arranged it so that even though the world rejected the flood message - he would just zaaaappp all humans up into a floating ark in space and kept them safe until after the flood ended. He could have had a zero-consequences ending like that - but He chose not to do that.

And it is hard to find cases in the Bible where ignoring God's warnings had zero consequences - as it turns out.

 

[Homeowner]

But I bring this up because in the real historic "real-life" examples we have in the Bible - there was always a downside to rejecting the true message of warning.

1. A real "downside" at the flood for rejecting Noah.
2. A real "downside" in the NT for rejecting Christ as Messiah.
3. At the end of time "a real downside" for rejecting what the Bible said will happen.

How would you prove they were in any way "historic" or "real life" ?

 

[BobRyan]

How would you prove they were in any way "historic" or "real life" ?

1. In general my post is set for the context of readers that believe the Bible and not atheism so I am not claiming that outside that context -- the atheists will easily agree with the various scenarios I propose.

2. As for the Bible vs atheism - I would need a thread just for that topic.

3. But when it comes to the literal real-life claim for a 7 day creation week that we see in Gen 2:1-3 - well it is specifically identified in "legal code" in Ex 20:11 affirming the literal 7 day week in code that is not a context for mere symbolism.

Notice Ex 20:11 legal code
11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and everything that is in them, and He rested on the seventh day; for that reason the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

And the Gen 2:1-3 text it references -
And so the heavens and the earth were completed, and all their heavenly lights. 2 By the seventh day God completed His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done. 3 Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because on it He rested from all His work which God had created and made.​

An atheist would probably argue that there is no God and that the author of the Bible did not know what he is talking about in those two cases so we need to find something "more trustworthy". But as I said -- this thread is not tailored for an atheist context.

 

[Homeowner]

But when it comes to the literal real-life claim for a 7 day creation week that we see in Gen 2:1-3 - well it is specifically identified in "legal code" in Ex 20:11 affirming the literal 7 day week in code that is not a context for mere symbolism.

Plenty of Christians out there that interpret it symbolically.

You are of course free to disagree but you have nothing historically nor scientifically to back that up anymore than people who believe in flat earth, sun orbiting earth or stars being points of light in canopy over our heads few hundred miles up.

But we might be drifting bit from OP so even believing whatever scientific inaccuracies people believe in they aren't related to their eventual salvation.

 

[BobRyan]

Plenty of Christians out there that interpret it symbolically. .

No doubt someone out there is Christian and takes every miracle reported in the bible as "symbolic" even if it is in legal code... as long at the miracle is not the virgin birth or Christ's resurrection.

I would not question that such a person exists.

 

[BobRyan]

You are of course free to disagree but you have nothing historically nor scientifically to back that up

There again we have the argument "ignoring the text of scripture as a reliable source for real events in real history -- what about other sources of history? what about scientists that don't agree with the Bible?"

And that specific argument is outside the primary scope of my OP since I am talking about various Christian beliefs and the case of "the alternative" in the event that my view is wrong on the examples given.

 

[BobRyan]

But we might be drifting bit from OP so even believing whatever scientific inaccuracies people believe in they aren't related to their eventual salvation.

So if all bible denial is wrong - then the OP question is "what is the risk" of all that denial..

This is about the risk of one view vs another when a given view is flat out wrong.

 

[BobRyan]

you have nothing historically nor scientifically to back that up anymore than people who believe in flat earth, sun orbiting earth or stars being points of light .

First of all "scientifically" would be outside the scope of the OP - but I will indulge that one for a post or two.

1. The Biblical historic account of the flood predicts evidence will exist of a world wide catastrophic event mixing land and sea life in mass graveyards -
‘Impossible Fossil’ Preserves the Exact Moment the Dinosaurs Died: ‘It’s Absolutely Bonkers’

2. It predicts fossilized marine life - sediment all over Earth including on the high mountains, which is where we find those calcium carbonate / chalk deposits.

3. Since Noah is the ancestor of all people groups on Earth today -- according to the Bible - then all of those major groups would have some remnant of that flood event. Which is what we find today.

4. The Bible does not dictate a flat earth any more than four-corners of a map dictate a flat Earth. Details matter.

5. Einstein confirmed that fact that motion is validly/scientifically describable in terms of frame of reference where an observer on Earth would describe the Sun in motion across the sky. It is a scientific principle - a known fact of science. Kicking the Bible would not change that scientific fact.

 

[Homeowner]

1. The Biblical historic account of the flood predicts evidence will exist of a world wide catastrophic event mixing land and sea life in mass graveyards -
‘Impossible Fossil’ Preserves the Exact Moment the Dinosaurs Died: ‘It’s Absolutely Bonkers’

The link says the flood was caused by meteor strike 66 million years ago. So you are ok with this or just cherry picking ?

 

[Homeowner]

This is about the risk of one view vs another when a given view is flat out wrong.

I guess the hard bit is to figure out what is "flat out wrong".

 

[Wyatt A.]

You could be the smartest most religious person in the world knowing all their rules but there's a difference between religion and having a relationship with the creator of the universe. Some people are religious about changing the oil in their car.
The fact that you have to work at rejecting the existence of God proves the existence of god. If He didn't exist, you wouldn't have to work at rejecting it, therefore he does exist.
There are certain laws that would not exist in a chance universe, the law of non contradiction. You cant have A and not-A at the same time. You can't be an athiest and have "the right beliefs", (if were talking about walking with Jesus who is the only way of salvation), otherwise you wouldn't be an athiest.
Even more, the fact that someone is an athiest proves the existence of God. If He didn't exist, you wouldn't have to be an athiest in the first place.
Your everyday experience would confirm random chance universe. Laws of physics wouldn't stay the same. They do stay the same because they stem from the mind of god and he doesn't change.
You can't reject something if that something isn't there.
Every man is aware of the existence of God even if they suppress that truth. God has written his laws on our hearts and minds so we are without excuse.
It doesn't matter what denomination you call yourself, do you want to be forgiven of all your past sins and be given a new life that is full of peace, hope, joy, and the end eternal life? Every man knows the difference between right and wrong even if they don't obey that truth, they know if you cut yourself its going to hurt.
So it comes down to choice. The things that we see are temporary, the things that are invisible are eternal. All men are aware of this because God has made it aware.
"For from the creation of the world the invisible things of Him are clearly seen, being understood through the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse." Romans 1:20

So it comes down to a choice you have to make and I hope you choose Him.
It is such a great gift and it came at a great cost. Paul said:

"For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us." Romans 8:18

6 But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away. Isaiah 64:6

For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away: But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.

 

[BobRyan]

I guess the hard bit is to figure out what is "flat out wrong".

wrong means, incorrect, untrue.

Take any one of the scenarios then evaluate with one affirmation being wrong -- and contrast it with its opposite being the wrong view and notice the difference in risk when you compare the two.

 

[BobRyan]

First of all "scientifically" would be outside the scope of the OP - but I will indulge that one for a post or two.

1. The Biblical historic account of the flood predicts evidence will exist of a world wide catastrophic event mixing land and sea life in mass graveyards -
‘Impossible Fossil’ Preserves the Exact Moment the Dinosaurs Died: ‘It’s Absolutely Bonkers’

2. It predicts fossilized marine life - sediment all over Earth including on the high mountains, which is where we find those calcium carbonate / chalk deposits.

3. Since Noah is the ancestor of all people groups on Earth today -- according to the Bible - then all of those major groups would have some remnant of that flood event. Which is what we find today.

4. The Bible does not dictate a flat earth any more than four-corners of a map dictate a flat Earth. Details matter.

5. Einstein confirmed that fact that motion is validly/scientifically describable in terms of frame of reference where an observer on Earth would describe the Sun in motion across the sky. It is a scientific principle - a known fact of science. Kicking the Bible would not change that scientific fact.

The link says the flood was caused by meteor strike 66 million years ago. So you are ok with this or just cherry picking ?

The link points to the same discovery predicted by the historic account of the flood found in the Bible. How is this not incredibly obvious?

1. The Biblical historic account of the flood predicts evidence will exist of a world wide catastrophic event mixing land and sea life in mass graveyards -
‘Impossible Fossil’ Preserves the Exact Moment the Dinosaurs Died: ‘It’s Absolutely Bonkers’

Your response is sort of in the form "well ok - but a flood that included a meteor strike.. eh?" -- which is a bit odd if your point is that no such evidence was found as stated in point 1 above.

And keeping the thread on the topic in the OP avoids that level of "parsing words"|