Which world is better: the world with no God or the world where the gospel is true?

[public hermit]

Imagine two possible worlds:

World 1
In this world there is no God. There is no afterlife and we are not held accountable for the way we have lived.

World 2
In this world, not only does God exist, but the gospel us true. Jesus truly lived, died for our sins, and rose again. In this world there is an afterlife and we are held accountable for the way we have lived.

Notice: World 2 does not entail that everything in the bible is true, only that the gospel is true. I know there are well-meaning Agnostics/Atheists and Christians who will want to argue that in order for the gospel to be true the bible must be inerrant. The purpose of this thread is to give us an opportunity to consider the big picture. So, for the sake of this thread, we are assuming the gospel is true without assuming biblical inerrancy. This does not mean you cannot quote scripture, only that we are not assuming biblical inerrancy.

I also hope this thread will not deteriorate into a debate about evolution. For the sake of this thread, World 2 does not entail that evolution is either true or false. Again, this is about considering the big picture and giving our best defense of the view of the world that we embrace.

We will leave open for debate on this thread the details of the afterlife and judgment, whatever that may or may not be.

Also: Please be kind. We all have to live according to what we believe to be true.

So, which world is best, World 1 or World 2? Please give reasons for your choice.

 

[pleinmont]

A world with no god would be preferable by far, imo.

 

[public hermit]

A world with no god would be preferable by far, imo.

Why do you believe that?

 

[pleinmont]

Why do you believe that?

The Biblical god is not a pleasant character, imo.

 

[durangodawood]

..World 2
In this world, not only does God exist, but the gospel us true. Jesus truly lived, died for our sins, and rose again. In this world there is an afterlife and we are held accountable for the way we have lived..

Does this world include a hell of eternal misery?

 

[public hermit]

Does this world include a hell of eternal misery?

That's up for debate.

 

[public hermit]

Does this world include a hell of eternal misery?

Would it make a difference in your decision if it didn't?

 

[Speedwell]

Notice: World 2 does not entail that everything in the bible is true, only that the gospel is true. I know there are well-meaning Agnostics/Atheists and Christians who will want to argue that in order for the gospel to be true the bible must be inerrant. The purpose of this thread is to give us an opportunity to consider the big picture. So, for the sake of this thread, we are assuming the gospel is true without assuming biblical inerrancy. This does not mean you cannot quote scripture, only that we are not assuming biblical inerrancy.

You pose a difficulty. The assumption of literal inerrancy makes a difference in how one views the Gospel. Indeed, for the Gospel to be true the Bible need not even exist.

 

[public hermit]

You pose a difficulty. The assumption of literal inerrancy makes a difference in how one views the Gospel. Indeed, for the Gospel to be true the Bible need not even exist.

I agree that for the gospel to be true the bible need not even exist. Maybe the gospel is in one letter, passed down faithfully. The possibilities are wide open. The point is, this is not about the bible. It's about the gospel.

 

[durangodawood]

Would it make a difference in your decision if it didn't?

I think so. The downside promise of hell is so severe. Not sure I want to inflict it on others just so I can have the upside possibility of heaven.

Plus I'd probably go to hell anyway because I cant seem to muster the required faith to avoid it in World 2.

 

[public hermit]

I think so. The downside promise of hell is so severe. Not sure I want to inflict it on others just so I can have the upside possibility of heaven.

Plus I'd probably go to hell anyway because I cant seem to muster the required faith to avoid it in World 2.

So, there are things about World 2 that are appealing, but being held accountable for how we live is a downside. Is that what you mean?

 

[Uber Genius]

A world with no god would be preferable by far, imo.

Reason?

So existentialists agree:

Objective moral values cross-culture DON'T EXIST

Objective meaning is not possible since we are no more meaningful as humans than any other random collection of atoms on atheism.

Adolfo Hitler's Final Solution," is actually "moral" because the German government enacted laws supporting it.

Again,

No good exists, or evil. Mass murderers and Mother Teresa are on the same moral level. So it's seems strange that a strawman description of God as being, "Not a pleasant character," when described as defending justice and being too patient when he does wipe out evil, would matter in the least when one ascribes Adolf Hitler as morally equivalent to Mother Teresa.

Deeply incoherent.

 

[Speedwell]

Reason?

So existentialists agree:

Objective moral values cross-culture DON'T EXIST

Objective meaning is not possible since we are no more meaningful as humans than any other random collection of atoms on atheism.

Adolfo Hitler's Final Solution," is actually "moral" because the German government enacted laws supporting it.

Again,

No good exists, or evil. Mass murderers and Mother Teresa are on the same moral level. So it's seems strange that a strawman description of God as being, "Not a pleasant character," when described as defending justice and being too patient when he does wipe out evil, would matter in the least when one ascribes Adolf Hitler as morally equivalent to Mother Teresa.

Deeply incoherent.

Obeying the arbitrary dictates of an omnipotent being who promises to punish the least failure of compliance with eternal torment is not morality, it is merely expedience.

 

[durangodawood]

So, there are things about World 2 that are appealing, but being held accountable for how we live is a downside. Is that what you mean?

I guess if its just about accountability for a life lived rather than assent to a certain belief structure, then I might be ok at judgement day. In that case world 2 is better. I mean, its got the promise of enduring bliss, or something like that, as well as a loving father figure whos at your side no matter what.

Accountability for life lived, ok.

But accountability for beliefs based on how we apprehend the world, no thanks. Your world 2 doesnt have this feature though, if Im reading it correctly.

 

[pleinmont]

Reason?

So existentialists agree:

Objective moral values cross-culture DON'T EXIST

Objective meaning is not possible since we are no more meaningful as humans than any other random collection of atoms on atheism.

Adolfo Hitler's Final Solution," is actually "moral" because the German government enacted laws supporting it.

Again,

No good exists, or evil. Mass murderers and Mother Teresa are on the same moral level. So it's seems strange that a strawman description of God as being, "Not a pleasant character," when described as defending justice and being too patient when he does wipe out evil, would matter in the least when one ascribes Adolf Hitler as morally equivalent to Mother Teresa.

Deeply incoherent.

MT was a highly unpleasant woman by all accounts. Years ago I met someone who had worked with her, they didn't rate her at all.

 

[Rajni]

So, there are things about World 2 that are appealing, but being held accountable for how we live is a downside. Is that what you mean?

Being held accountable doesn't have to involve the threat of eternal torture.

 

[Uber Genius]

You pose a difficulty. The assumption of literal inerrancy makes a difference in how one views the Gospel. Indeed, for the Gospel to be true the Bible need not even exist.

Could you identify which parts of the gospel require inerrancy?

It seems that we could read the gospel accounts in the genre of Graeco-Roman biography and not overlay a 19th century motif of reading out of genre.

Most scholars acknowledge that if the Bible is reliable in the sense that it gives us true accounts. The central idea of the gospels genre, are "portraits," that are true but each different.

It is anachronistic to apply 21 century historical methods to 1 century historical accounts.

But it would be fair to examine the elements of the gospels and what it would entail?

 

[public hermit]

I guess if its just about accountability for a life lived rather than assent to a certain belief structure, then I might be ok at judgement day. In that case world 2 is better. I mean, its got the promise of enduring bliss, or something like that, as well as a loving father figure whos at your side no matter what.

Accountability for life lived, ok.

But accountability for beliefs based on how we apprehend the world, no thanks. Your world 2 doesnt have this feature though, if Im reading it correctly.

I left it pretty open so that these kinds of things could be discussed.

 

[Speedwell]

Could you identify which parts of the gospel require inerrancy?

It seems that we could read the gospel accounts in the genre of Graeco-Roman biography and not overlay a 19th century motif of reading out of genre.

Most scholars acknowledge that if the Bible is reliable in the sense that it gives us true accounts. The central idea of the gospels genre, are "portraits," that are true but each different.

It is anachronistic to

To what? But let me put it more plainly. Do you believe the Gospel because you believe the Gospel? Or do you accept the Gospel because it says so in an inerrant book?

 

[Uber Genius]

MT was a highly unpleasant woman by all accounts. Years ago I met someone who had worked with her, they didn't rate her at all.

non-sequitur!

You just attempted to argue there is no difference between a person who creates and executes a plan to kill 6-million Jews and other "unwanted people's,"

And a person lauded for sacrificing the majority of her life serving the poorest of the poor and sickest of the sick in Calcutta.

Make up whomever you want for the Mother Teresa character in my analogy and respond with reasons sans dodges, or strawmen please.