Why is non-belief so terrible?

[brinny]

Originally Posted by Borel
Are you saying I'm blinding myself from reality (where God is real)?

brinny: Yes

it comes as natural as breathing to do so. we have no love for, interest in, or desire to know Him.

 

[Borel]

it comes as natural as breathing to do so. we have no love for, interest in, or desire to know Him.

I did once believe in God. But my faith vanished the older I got.

Well, since neither of us can prove either way about me blinding myself, I guess we just have to agree that we disagree, ey?

 

[Ryft]

My question is: "Why is non-belief so terrible?"

Why are you concerned about it in the first place? That is what I don't understand. If you do not believe in God, it seems likely you don't believe in hell either; it would otherwise be incongruous. A concern about the latter betrays a perhaps subconscious belief in the former.

Unless, of course, what your concern is really about is the 'justice' of God (alleged to exist); i.e., whether God condemning unbelievers is a just thing for him to do, whether divine condemnation against sin is 'just'. That sort of question would be more consistent with your atheism (and an easily answered one).

But why should only those who believe receive eternal life? How easily one believes is up to the individual. God could've chosen another attribute to whom he grants eternal life.

'Belief' is not what gets you eternal life. Nor is 'faith'. The atoning sacrifice of Christ is what gets you eternal life, his perfect righteousness in life and death and the triumph of his resurrection. Faith is simply the means by which one enters into a saving covenant relationship with God through Christ, who alone is our righteousness. To use an analogy, forks provide no nourishment; the nutrition resides in the food. But it is the fork that conveys the nutritional food; in a similar way it is faith that is the instrument by which we appropriate the saving work found in Christ alone, the Bread of Life. It is not belief or faith that saves us; it is the righteousness of Christ that saves us, and we enter into that saving work by faith.

It's [as] if it said in the Bible that only blonde people get to heaven.

As noted above, (going with your analogy here) the Bible does not connect salvation with ANY 'attribute' of man. If “blond hair” is that by which we are saved, it is Christ—and only Christ—who has blond hair. You are bald. I am bald. All of mankind is universally bald. If I receive salvation at all, it is because of Christ's blond hair. I have none. Nobody does.

The problem is, I don't think we choose what we believe. We believe what we conclude is correct from the evidence we have, whatever we might take as evidence.

The latter sentence contradicts the former sentence; namely, “whatever we might take as evidence” is a product of our “choosing what we believe” (in the category of epistemology, in that case).

Although you guys are probably sick of this example, try believing that Sauron is real. It won't work, because you have absolutely no reason to believe he is real.

Describe Sauron to me. Describe his personality, character, and more importantly his being or nature. In very short order it will become apparent why this scenario is nowhere near analogous.


~ Ryft

 

[PastorJim]

Sorry if this has been asked before.

My question is: "Why is non-belief so terrible?" Why should it earn you eternal torture?

You don't go to Hell for "non-belief". You go to Hell as punishment for your sins.

Especially as your god hasn't left any clear indicators that he even exists?

I disagree. God has made it abundantly obvious through creation and through His word that He exists. History shows that Jesus Christ, who is God, did exist on Earth.

I reject the concept of a god, I do not reject what that concept stands for (except for the stuff in the Bible even many Christians reject).

That's like a drowning man saying, "I reject life preservers but I don't reject what they stand for".

My point is, I am not evil.

Really? So you've never broken God's laws at all?

 

[Borel]

Why are you concerned about it in the first place? That is what I don't understand. If you do not believe in God, it seems likely you don't believe in hell either; it would otherwise be incongruous. A concern about the latter betrays a perhaps subconscious belief in the former.

I am not concerned about hell, I'm concerned about the fact that people think I deserve to go there, and that a benevolent god would send me there.

Unless, of course, what your concern is really about is the 'justice' of God (alleged to exist); i.e., whether God condemning unbelievers is a just thing for him to do, whether divine condemnation against sin is 'just'. That sort of question would be more consistent with your atheism (and an easily answered one).

Almost, it's mostly about a specific sin, whether nonbelief is something you deserve to burn in hell for or not.

'Belief' is not what gets you eternal life. Nor is 'faith'. The atoning sacrifice of Christ is what gets you eternal life, his perfect righteousness in life and death and the triumph of his resurrection. Faith is simply the means by which one enters into a saving covenant relationship with God through Christ, who alone is our righteousness. To use an analogy, forks provide no nourishment; the nutrition resides in the food. But it is the fork that conveys the nutritional food; in a similar way it is faith that is the instrument by which we appropriate the saving work found in Christ alone, the Bread of Life. It is not belief or faith that saves us; it is the righteousness of Christ that saves us, and we enter into that saving work by faith.

But to be saved, we would still need faith?

As noted above, (going with your analogy here) the Bible does not connect salvation with ANY 'attribute' of man. If “blond hair” is that by which we are saved, it is Christ—and only Christ—who has blond hair. You are bald. I am bald. All of mankind is universally bald. If I receive salvation at all, it is because of Christ's blond hair. I have none. Nobody does.

But, we need faith to be saved, don't we? And how easily one gains faith is something no human has in common with each other. Granted, the Bible doesn't say that those who gain faith easily are much more likely to be saved, but that's what it means if only those with faith are saved.

The latter sentence contradicts the former sentence; namely, “whatever we might take as evidence” is a product of our “choosing what we believe” (in the category of epistemology, in that case).

I don't think we choose what we take as evidence either. If someone told you that Superman is real, and he knows it because his friend's aunt's husband saw him flying around, would you take that as sufficient evidence? Could you take that as sufficient evidence and honestly believe Superman is real?

Describe Sauron to me. Describe his personality, character, and more importantly his being or nature. In very short order it will become apparent why this scenario is nowhere near analogous.

~ Ryft

I was only demonstrating you can't control your beliefs by asking you to believe Sauron was real. You could, of course try it on another religion. For example, I bet you can't right now honestly believe Allah is real.

-------------
Anyway, thanks for the post.

 

[m0rk]

Do you think I'm turning my back and closing my eyes on purpose? I can assure you I am not.

None of us want to close our eyes, lose sight of our aims, but we do.

You can't on the one hand say that you're open to the Christian God revealing himself to you and on the other hand dismiss the evidence that is the Bible on the other. The two stances are contradictory. Therefore I think I'm right in saying that you are.

 

[solarwave]

Im gunna try and answer the original post. This is how I understand hell so far.

Humans were made to go to heaven, but we sin and because of this we cannot go to heaven or be in the presence of God because our sin would make heaven imperfect. So where to put all these people who have sinned? A place apart from God called hell. Hell (I think but might be wrong) is simply a seperation from God for eternity. All good things come from God and so there is no good in hell. Yeh it may suck but it is what we deserve. To be honest God could just wipe us out right now; an all powerful holy being doesn't have to put with ants on a speck of dust floating in space who use His name as a curse, why should He. I hope you understand what I mean.

 

[Angeloffire]

Sorry if this has been asked before.

My question is: "Why is non-belief so terrible?" Why should it earn you eternal torture? Especially as your god hasn't left any clear indicators that he even exists?

I reject the concept of a god, I do not reject what that concept stands for (except for the stuff in the Bible even many Christians reject). My point is, I am not evil.

And, it's not like I choose not to believe. I can't control it. Because I've never encountered anything in my life that would indicate the existence of a supreme deity (especially a specific deity) I find it very hard to believe in one. I understand if someone heard a voice from the skies or something like that and concluded a god was behind it (not commenting on if I would find such evidence satisfactory), but I have never encountered anything that would give me a reason to believe in a god.

I can understand punishment (although not eternal torture or anything like that) to someone who believes your god is real and still turns their back to him and worships the devil.

Thoughts?

The problem is that God is Life, Joy, Happiness, Peace, Mercy, Kindness, and everything Good and true. It isn't that God is picking on anyone, but rather it is just a matter of logistics and science.

Everyone who isn't in Him and with Him has the opposite place to live for eternity.

He is complete Truth.....and has never lied nor can He. So you see why it is impossible for man to return without some kind of way made. That is what Jesus is.

Blessings,

AOF

 

[OldChurchGuy]

Sorry if this has been asked before.

My question is: "Why is non-belief so terrible?" Why should it earn you eternal torture? Especially as your god hasn't left any clear indicators that he even exists?

I reject the concept of a god, I do not reject what that concept stands for (except for the stuff in the Bible even many Christians reject). My point is, I am not evil.

And, it's not like I choose not to believe. I can't control it. Because I've never encountered anything in my life that would indicate the existence of a supreme deity (especially a specific deity) I find it very hard to believe in one. I understand if someone heard a voice from the skies or something like that and concluded a god was behind it (not commenting on if I would find such evidence satisfactory), but I have never encountered anything that would give me a reason to believe in a god.

I can understand punishment (although not eternal torture or anything like that) to someone who believes your god is real and still turns their back to him and worships the devil.

Thoughts?

Interesting question.

What evidence do you seek to believe in the existense of God?

Sincerely,

OldChurchGuy

 

[Ryft]

I am not concerned about hell, I'm concerned about the fact that people think I deserve to go there, and that a benevolent god would send me there.

As I said, a belief that hell exists betrays an at least subconscious belief that God exists. And if you're concerned that people think you deserve to go to hell, then you must believe to some degree that hell exists.

It's like if someone told me that I deserve to be cast into the fires of Mount Doom in Mordor. That would make me chuckle. I would be amused. I would not have even the slightest trace of concern.

And a benevolent God does not send anyone to hell. A just God does. Keep in mind that God is not all-benevolent to the exclusion of any other attributes. Yes he is benevolent, but he is also just and full of wrath against sin.

Almost, it's mostly about a specific sin, whether nonbelief is something you deserve to burn in hell for or not.

No one is condemned for unbelief. They are condemned for their sin, and in their unbelief—itself a sin—they remain condemned.

All mankind exists in a state of condemnation on account of sin. Those who belong to God, in their day of salvation move from death to life, from darkness to light. We ALL come from the same pool of death and darkness, of sin and moral ruin—and through unbelief, itself a sin, mankind remains there. We exist in death; only in Christ do we move to life. We exist in darkness; only in Christ do we move to light. We exist under God’s wrath; only in Christ is that wrath removed. We exist in condemnation; only in Christ are we justified.

But we need faith to be saved, don't we? And how easily one gains faith is something no human has in common with each other.

It's actually one of the few things we do all have in common. The Bible is pretty clear: for natural man, gaining faith is impossible. If faith was up to us to acquire, with no help by God's grace, no one would be saved. That is why the Bible speaks of faith as a gift.

Just don't confuse faith with abstract belief or moral repentance, etc. There are distinct categories. For example, believing that God exists is not 'faith'.

I don't think we choose what we take as evidence either. If someone told you that Superman is real, and he knows it because his friend's aunt's husband saw him flying around, would you take that as sufficient evidence? Could you take that as sufficient evidence and honestly believe Superman is real?

No. However, that has nothing to do with whether or not I choose what I take as evidence. Rejecting the existence of Superman is the RESULT of the evidentiary criteria I chose. In other words, I subjected the existence of Superman to the test of my already existing evidentiary criteria. I did not use his existence to develop my criteria.

I was only demonstrating you can't control your beliefs by asking you to believe Sauron was real.

I am a former atheist who was asked to believe God is real. It would seem I can indeed control my beliefs. However, giving intellectual assent to something is not unconditional; for me to believe a proposition, it needs to meet certain epistemic requirements I have. I've been asked to believe that many different things are real; some of them meet the criteria, others don't.

The looming question I am building up to is this: If you are having trouble believing that God is real, maybe the problem isn't God. Maybe the problem is the metaphysical system you have chosen. What if it's faulty? How would you ever know? Especially when that metaphysical system, built upon unprovable assumptions, holds the criteria by which you judge everything else?

Start by asking yourself simple but profound questions. Does 'real' and 'exist' mean the same thing? Can something be real but not exist? What does it mean for something to exist? And so forth. For example, the 'metaphysical' criteria I once affirmed actually eliminated the universe as a whole, when I applied them consistently.

You could, of course try it on another religion. For example, I bet you can't right now honestly believe Allah is real.

Don't make assumptions about my philosophical journeys, my friend. In addition to the years I've spent studying philosophy, I have also studied over 25 different world religions. I can reject the existence of Allah because I have explored these various depths. The rejection is for a reason, it is an informed rejection.


~ Ryft

 

[Borel]

None of us want to close our eyes, lose sight of our aims, but we do.

You can't on the one hand say that you're open to the Christian God revealing himself to you and on the other hand dismiss the evidence that is the Bible on the other. The two stances are contradictory. Therefore I think I'm right in saying that you are.

Being open to evidence doesn't mean acccepting any evidence. Nothing really suggests that the Bible is anything but a book.

 

[Borel]

You don't go to Hell for "non-belief". You go to Hell as punishment for your sins.

Well, the only way I can avoid hell is by faith, isn't it? So practically I am.

I disagree. God has made it abundantly obvious through creation and through His word that He exists. History shows that Jesus Christ, who is God, did exist on Earth.

You can only see God behind the creation of the universe if you first assume God exists. And I have seen only men claim that God exists, not God himself. Jesus could very well have existed, whether he was the son of God or not is another matter.

That's like a drowning man saying, "I reject life preservers but I don't reject what they stand for".

I know life preservers exist, and that they can save me. I have no such knowledge (or evidence) when it comes your god.

Really? So you've never broken God's laws at all?

So has probably every Christian. Are you evil?
The Christian just won't get punished, solely because of his faith.

Thanks for your post.

 

[Borel]

Im gunna try and answer the original post. This is how I understand hell so far.

Humans were made to go to heaven, but we sin and because of this we cannot go to heaven or be in the presence of God because our sin would make heaven imperfect. So where to put all these people who have sinned? A place apart from God called hell. Hell (I think but might be wrong) is simply a seperation from God for eternity. All good things come from God and so there is no good in hell. Yeh it may suck but it is what we deserve. To be honest God could just wipe us out right now; an all powerful holy being doesn't have to put with ants on a speck of dust floating in space who use His name as a curse, why should He. I hope you understand what I mean.

I understand what you mean, but surely you believe Christians go to heaven? Because they are 'forgiven for their faith'. Why faith? Surely an omnipotent god could've come up with a solution where most people wouldn't go to hell.

Thanks for your post, though.

 

[Borel]

The problem is that God is Life, Joy, Happiness, Peace, Mercy, Kindness, and everything Good and true. It isn't that God is picking on anyone, but rather it is just a matter of logistics and science.

Everyone who isn't in Him and with Him has the opposite place to live for eternity.

He is complete Truth.....and has never lied nor can He. So you see why it is impossible for man to return without some kind of way made. That is what Jesus is.

Blessings,

AOF

Why must that 'way' be faith? Because of that most of humanity won't get to him. If he made it clear he existed and accepted those who accepted him, that, I think, would be better. If faith is the only way to return to this supposed god, then lots of good people are living in a worse place just because of their unbelief.

Anyway, thanks for your post.

 

[Borel]

Interesting question.

What evidence do you seek to believe in the existense of God?

Sincerely,

OldChurchGuy

I'm sure he could figure out what would convince me.
Witnessing an unexplainable miracle, discovering Christian aliens, something like that.
Of course he'd have to prove he's the Christian God, too.

Thanks for your post.

 

[m0rk]

Being open to evidence doesn't mean acccepting any evidence. Nothing really suggests that the Bible is anything but a book.

But you're dismissing this evidence!

All Christians will tell you that the Bible is evidence of God. Surely that's suggestion?!?

Hard factual proof of Gods existence for everyone to see would be contrary to Gods signature as defined in the Bible. For the Bible to irrefutably prove Gods existence would be contradictory to itself.

 

[Borel]

As I said, a belief that hell exists betrays an at least subconscious belief that God exists. And if you're concerned that people think you deserve to go to hell, then you must believe to some degree that hell exists.

No, I just find it a little disturbing my fellow man thinks I should be eternally tortured.

It's like if someone told me that I deserve to be cast into the fires of Mount Doom in Mordor. That would make me chuckle. I would be amused. I would not have even the slightest trace of concern.

Except when that someone would tells you you deserve to burn in Mount Doom forever for whatever reason. That would be a little disturbing, not because I'm worried it's true.

And a benevolent God does not send anyone to hell. A just God does. Keep in mind that God is not all-benevolent to the exclusion of any other attributes. Yes he is benevolent, but he is also just and full of wrath against sin.

No one is condemned for unbelief. They are condemned for their sin, and in their unbelief—itself a sin—they remain condemned.

All mankind exists in a state of condemnation on account of sin. Those who belong to God, in their day of salvation move from death to life, from darkness to light. We ALL come from the same pool of death and darkness, of sin and moral ruin—and through unbelief, itself a sin, mankind remains there. We exist in death; only in Christ do we move to life. We exist in darkness; only in Christ do we move to light. We exist under God’s wrath; only in Christ is that wrath removed. We exist in condemnation; only in Christ are we justified.

Why because of unbelief? Why is it even a sin? Why is unbelief the obstacle to being saved when I can't even control it?

It's actually one of the few things we do all have in common. The Bible is pretty clear: for natural man, gaining faith is impossible. If faith was up to us to acquire, with no help by God's grace, no one would be saved. That is why the Bible speaks of faith as a gift.

Then am I not going to be saved because God chose not to give me faith?

Just don't confuse faith with abstract belief or moral repentance, etc. There are distinct categories. For example, believing that God exists is not 'faith'.

Could you explain what exactly faith is?

No. However, that has nothing to do with whether or not I choose what I take as evidence. Rejecting the existence of Superman is the RESULT of the evidentiary criteria I chose. In other words, I subjected the existence of Superman to the test of my already existing evidentiary criteria. I did not use his existence to develop my criteria.

I see what you mean, although, can we choose our evidentiary critera however we want and honestly accept the changes in our worldview that follow, or do we choose the one that makes the most sense to us?

I am a former atheist who was asked to believe God is real. It would seem I can indeed control my beliefs. However, giving intellectual assent to something is not unconditional; for me to believe a proposition, it needs to meet certain epistemic requirements I have. I've been asked to believe that many different things are real; some of them meet the criteria, others don't.

The looming question I am building up to is this: If you are having trouble believing that God is real, maybe the problem isn't God. Maybe the problem is the metaphysical system you have chosen. What if it's faulty? How would you ever know? Especially when that metaphysical system, built upon unprovable assumptions, holds the criteria by which you judge everything else?

Start by asking yourself simple but profound questions. Does 'real' and 'exist' mean the same thing? Can something be real but not exist? What does it mean for something to exist? And so forth. For example, the 'metaphysical' criteria I once affirmed actually eliminated the universe as a whole, when I applied them consistently.

Thanks for your advice, I'll look into that.

Don't make assumptions about my philosophical journeys, my friend. In addition to the years I've spent studying philosophy, I have also studied over 25 different world religions. I can reject the existence of Allah because I have explored these various depths. The rejection is for a reason, it is an informed rejection.

I'm sorry about that, but that still wasn't my point. My point is that we can't control our beliefs. If we could, I could at any time believe whatever I wanted. It's easily demonstrated we can't control our beliefs by trying to believe something, whether it's close to realistic or not.
Oh, and wow. I can't even list over 25 world religions.

~ Ryft

You seem like a really clever guy, thanks for answering.

 

[MARK777]

The problem is, to find God you must be seeking him in the first place, although I found God from trying to disprove his existence to start with (specifically the Christian God) but I was seeking for answers.

How about, rather than trying to get people here to convince you and then just go onto reply I would like to but I cannot believe, or that sounds nice but I dont beleive in this or that, try actually reading the bible youself with a non biased viewpoint, ignore and forget everything you think you know about Christ and God, and read it from this empty viewpoint and draw your conclusion from this, try reading the gospels, read psalms, and proverbs with an open mind, and ask (even from your non beleif viewpoint, ask God, if you exist then please guide me and help me understand) And draw up your own conclusion based on what you have read, experience and see while you go through this process.

Only then can you truly argue his existence or will and anything else that we as Christians have come to understand and beleive.

You see you can only say you dont beleive in God, or dont beleive in the bible, once you actually understand what the bible is really about, to draw your own conclusions from other peoples viewpoint is probably one of the most silly things any person can do.

Because at the moment it is just like you are saying there is no such thing as the color green, I see no proof that it exists, people that beleive in the color green are silly, but all the time keeping your eyes closed so you cannot ever percieve the color green.

 

[Borel]

But you're dismissing this evidence!

All Christians will tell you that the Bible is evidence of God. Surely that's suggestion?!?

Hard factual proof of Gods existence for everyone to see would be contrary to Gods signature as defined in the Bible. For the Bible to irrefutably prove Gods existence would be contradictory to itself.

I agree the Bible is some evidence, although not nearly enough.

 

[Borel]

The problem is, to find God you must be seeking him in the first place, although I found God from trying to disprove his existence to start with (specifically the Christian God) but I was seeking for answers.

How about, rather than trying to get people here to convince you and then just go onto reply I would like to but I cannot believe, or that sounds nice but I dont beleive in this or that, try actually reading the bible youself with a non biased viewpoint, ignore and forget everything you think you know about Christ and God, and read it from this empty viewpoint and draw your conclusion from this, try reading the gospels, read psalms, and proverbs with an open mind, and ask (even from your non beleif viewpoint, ask God, if you exist then please guide me and help me understand) And draw up your own conclusion based on what you have read, experience and see while you go through this process.

Only then can you truly argue his existence or will and anything else that we as Christians have come to understand and beleive.

You see you can only say you dont beleive in God, or dont beleive in the bible, once you actually understand what the bible is really about, to draw your own conclusions from other peoples viewpoint is probably one of the most silly things any person can do.

Because at the moment it is just like you are saying there is no such thing as the color green, I see no proof that it exists, people that beleive in the color green are silly, but all the time keeping your eyes closed so you cannot ever percieve the color green.

Thanks for your suggestion, I might just do that.

PS.I don't think people who believe in God are silly.