How much do you really believe in God?

[huckelberry]

Looking at the question from a strictly layperson/non-scholar PoV, I find the idea of a god who is much like us, just getting by, down in the nitty-gritty with ordinary people, somewhat appealing. (I'm not saying, however, that this is what I believe.) It's not too far from the not unpopular idea that god is, and is in, everything.

Interestingly enough, that is one of the reasons I find Mormonism appealing. God in Mormonism isn't the classical omni-everything of traditional Christianity. He has to work with eternally existent material, in a sense making do with what he has available.

Tagriffy, the traditional god has to work with what is possible and what is within his power. He has all power but that means there is no other power for him to gain. So how do you see that as different from the LDS view and how would you see one as superior to the other?

[tagriffy]

Tagriffy, the traditional god has to work with what is possible and what is within his power. He has all power but that means there is no other power for him to gain. So how do you see that as different from the LDS view and how would you see one as superior to the other?

Start with creatio ex nihilo. The position of traditional Christianity for well nigh two thousand years is that God created the universe out of nothing. Mormonism does away with that, instead holding that matter is eternal. Here's the contrast: in traditional mainstream Christianity the laws of physics work the way they do because God wrote those laws; in Mormonism, the laws of physics work the way they do because they are the inherent properties of existing matter. This means the laws of physics are not a constraint on God in traditional Christianity, whereas they are in Mormonism. As Mormon theologians like B. H. Roberts pointed out, this has implications for the problem of evil, which has proven a perennial problem for traditional Christianity.

Also, this potentially makes Mormonism very science friendly, though of course the actuality has proven different. I won't press this point too far since the problem in traditional science vs. religion debate is usually about literalism.

I don't necessarily see the Mormon view as superior to mainstream Christianity. That's really outside my paygrade; my view is that a person should follow the religion that works best for them. What I would say is that this is one of the reasons I find Mormonism more appealing.

[malkie]

Tagriffy, the traditional god has to work with what is possible and what is within his power. He has all power but that means there is no other power for him to gain. So how do you see that as different from the LDS view and how would you see one as superior to the other?

Start with creatio ex nihilo. The position of traditional Christianity for well nigh two thousand years is that God created the universe out of nothing. Mormonism does away with that, instead holding that matter is eternal. Here's the contrast: in traditional mainstream Christianity the laws of physics work the way they do because God wrote those laws; in Mormonism, the laws of physics work the way they do because they are the inherent properties of existing matter. This means the laws of physics are not a constraint on God in traditional Christianity, whereas they are in Mormonism. As Mormon theologians like B. H. Roberts pointed out, this has implications for the problem of evil, which has proven a perennial problem for traditional Christianity.

Also, this potentially makes Mormonism very science friendly, though of course the actuality has proven different. I won't press this point too far since the problem in traditional science vs. religion debate is usually about literalism.

I don't necessarily see the Mormon view as superior to mainstream Christianity. That's really outside my paygrade; my view is that a person should follow the religion that works best for them. What I would say is that this is one of the reasons I find Mormonism more appealing.

Tim, based on your last paragraph, I'm wondering how you feel about any of the Christian religions or sects, including Mormonism, proselytizing members of another sect. In particular, do you think that maintaining a missionary force of 70K or so, is a good thing, when many of the people the missionaries reach are already Christians?

In some countries, for example, in Latin America, virtually everyone the missionaries meet is a Christian of some sort.

[tagriffy]

Start with creatio ex nihilo. The position of traditional Christianity for well nigh two thousand years is that God created the universe out of nothing. Mormonism does away with that, instead holding that matter is eternal. Here's the contrast: in traditional mainstream Christianity the laws of physics work the way they do because God wrote those laws; in Mormonism, the laws of physics work the way they do because they are the inherent properties of existing matter. This means the laws of physics are not a constraint on God in traditional Christianity, whereas they are in Mormonism. As Mormon theologians like B. H. Roberts pointed out, this has implications for the problem of evil, which has proven a perennial problem for traditional Christianity.

Also, this potentially makes Mormonism very science friendly, though of course the actuality has proven different. I won't press this point too far since the problem in traditional science vs. religion debate is usually about literalism.

I don't necessarily see the Mormon view as superior to mainstream Christianity. That's really outside my paygrade; my view is that a person should follow the religion that works best for them. What I would say is that this is one of the reasons I find Mormonism more appealing.

Tim, based on your last paragraph, I'm wondering how you feel about any of the Christian religions or sects, including Mormonism, proselytizing members of another sect. In particular, do you think that maintaining a missionary force of 70K or so, is a good thing, when many of the people the missionaries reach are already Christians?

In some countries, for example, in Latin America, virtually everyone the missionaries meet is a Christian of some sort.

I have mixed feelings about it. I personally don't actively proselyte, and I do have grave problems with the practice in general. However, I recognize that proselyting is an important part of many religions. To try forbidding it runs against another deeply held belief--freedom of religion. It's an issue I haven't fully resolved.

[huckelberry]

Gadianton, I cannot help but feel like you are applying theism to a narrow group of people. I have no doubt you describe some people but most believers expect God to be gracious far beyond what you describe. Well there are limits to their expectations.

I am a theist but expect heaven and Gods grace to extend to people of wide ranges of religious variations. I do not expect to meet Hitler at the door however.

Is that the question? If I am wrong about God does that mean the Nazis are the only God approved religion? It is only chaos to try to ask what if I am wrong about every everthing.

Huck, I think you are a great human being but you're also quite liberal, and I don't think that reflects most of Christianity.

I do think Christianity has "modernized" somewhat in terms of "hell fire" content, but I don't think in general Christians are quite as gracious in the way you may be putting it. Most Christian sects have a "salvation of the heathen" clause (let's call it SOH) for those who didn't have a proper chance to hear the good news, and there is plenty of uncertainty as to what constitutes a "chance". If I'm an Evangelical, I believe that Catholic doctrine is an abomination, and that Catholics are damned to the pit of hell, as everyone is damned to the pit of hell who does not have access to the legitimate good news. However, SOH might kick in and save them anyway. But if a Catholic has had a proper chance to hear the correct sectarian news, and they reject it, then the pit of hell legitimately awaits. Same for Catholic considering protestants. In other words, in general, there is no doctrinal tolerance whatsoever for any other worldview outside the sect's own worldview, but they have their cake and eat it too by playing the SOH clause. Let's be clear: if Baptists are right, and if I have been given the proper chance to hear the good news as presented by the Baptists, and if I say, "You know, that's great, but it's not for me" then I will go to hell to burn with Satan forever. Eternity. I get to experience the equivalent of every Holocaust victim sequentially times 27 million and the fires of hell are barely kindled at that point.

There's a Chick pamphlet called Holy Joe that I think spells out how it is for EVs nicely. Holy Joe is a self-righteous, heroic, heaven-bound Saint. He has a nasty Sargent and a nice non-Christian fellow soldier. All three are together on a helicopter ride to the battlefield. On the way, Joe witnesses to the others. Of course the Sargent laughs at him while his friend politely declines. Through either the Sargent's gross incompetency or diabolicalness, I can't remember, the copter falls into a trap. When joe exists the chopper he's surrounded and killed. The nice friend is also killed, and so is the Sargent. Joe meets God and goes to heaven, of course. But, the plot twist is right before the Sargent is riddled with bullets, he exclaims something like, "maybe I need that Jesus Holy Joe was talking about" and so of course, he's saved also. The nice friend just dies, though, and he's dropped into hell fire. This is essentially what every Evangelical believes, some with greater nuance than others, with most of the nuance coming from the SOH clause but also some uncertainty with regards to "eternal security", which I won't get into right now.

The bottom line is that there are two states, heaven and hell; eternal bliss, and TREE3 x TREE3 x the Holocaust. All you can do as a liberal Christian is invoke uncertainty on the state of the electron, making it sound more fair, but the bottom line is that every wave function will fall into one of two exact states. Somewhere there's a cutoff for those who don't fall under God's grace. Hell awaits with gaping jaws. And the criteria for EVs is NOT how good a person is, but either a) did the person accept Jesus as savior or b) did God elect the person (or both).

The doctrine, mind you, is that the fall of Adam and Eve leaves everyone damned to hell. Break one commandment, you've broke them all. So when you bring up Hitler, it's really a non-starter. Stealing a candy bar leaves you in the same hell earned by Hitler, and relief from that hell is only by the grace of Christ. Here is a typical random resource on Hitler and salvation:

https://forum.evangelicaluniversalist.c ... -saved/129

If Hitler accepted Jesus as his personal savior before he died, then he's saved. No different than if a person whose only sin was stealing a single gummy bear. If Hitler accepted Jesus, he's in heaven, and if the gummy thief didn't, he's in hell.

this post suggested I ought to come up with a bit more to say so I am adding to it.
Hi, Gadianton, thanks for taking the time to make a real reply. In a sense I find myself facing a simple reply even though more resides in the back of my mind to perhaps take a bit longer.

It is like you made a chess move, check, which to my horror I see as terminal. Resignation. I look and see if the messenger is correct and I am crucially wrong about god then that would mean that chick comics are correct and that is enough of a horror to recommend accepting termination rather than eternal life trapped by such a god.

I used to believe that chick represented small groups of mostly teenage fanatics. Ev fanatic support of Trump a horror like the image of chick's god has told me that I am wrong. The beast comes stumbling towards America.

Will flustered objections avoid the checkmate? I think EV claiming catholics are hell bound are grotesque apostates preaching antichrist doctrine. I am unsure if chick contains more fear of god or more hatred of god. I find it difficult to not suspect the second.
/////
I thought to address your comment about a more liberal approach and the electron with two destinations determined by putting on a Jesus badge or not.

Like the majority of Christians in the world I believe some sort of purgatory is involved. I do not claim any knowledge of how it works and the end results are to my view not explained. I doubt the heaven hell thing as a final end. I do not have a special knowledge about that however.

I do think there is knowledge about things more important. I am actually thinking here of the basics of the beatitudes, the importance of gratitude, respect for truth,care for the people you live around, care for the health of society at large and the health of the planet we live on.

I think when scripture speaks of being saved by faith it refers to those things that matter, a Jesus badge only if that means a genuine turn to the things that matter to God, ( things listed in the previous sentence).

I do not think our end state is separate from the life here on earth. We are to be aiming at a better world here now , one worth continuing on into the future.

[Gadianton]

It's definitely worth asking about what if God exists but is not as we think. Offering deals with eternal torment at stake, but with choices that have to be made from badly insufficient information, is the kind of thing that only an idiotic God would do, though. That's the part I can't take seriously enough to think seriously about this scenario.

I can see your point, but my first reaction is a major, "But what about...?" -- fill in with any religion that has ever existed, as making ridiculously leveraged choices on insufficient information is what the sum al all theistic religions may be about more than any one thing.

I think my version is tame in comparison, as it doesn't explicitly say anything about eternal torment. The being just says you're wrong and your options are to pick the real deal or go quietly into the night. In case it wasn't clear, my note about eternal torment was an added explanation, that if you believe in eternal torment, then in my opinion, the scenario would be frightening. My point, I think, is that theism in the abstract doesn't go very well with any theistic religion that has ever existed. The invention of Deism might have been a nod of the head to that fact. I think the paradox the hypothetical might show is that non-theists will be more inclined to risk judgement than theists, when the prospect is limited to theism in the abstract only. When they don't get to chose their particulars. And that's because non-theists won't be able to convince themselves the supreme being, should one exist, would be as irrational as nearly every religion makes God out to be, and so why not? Whereas theists are tied to the particular beliefs that give them their identity, and that at the same time leverage the consequence of rejecting their particular beliefs to ridiculous levels. And so when faced with that horribly leveraged bet when suddenly, the dice aren't loaded in your favor, then your most rational choice is to jump ship. The risks are a function of your own beliefs, nothing more.

Yes, it's the same kind of deal that plenty of religious believers have insisted, for centuries, that God really offers.

Sorry, I should have read this sentence before going into my explanation above, but since I wrote it already, I'll keep it there. At any rate, the difference in mine is that it only offers God-as-Monty-Hall if the individual in the hot seat believes God is Monty Hall.

So it's not exactly a straw-man scenario, no. I think it's still something in kind of that straw-ish direction, though. I've spent a lot of time with a lot of religious people from a lot of different groups, including groups with party lines that really are pretty God-as-Monty-Hall in this way. I would say that all of these people have actually been very squishy on this part of their supposed belief system. I think they really do believe in God. I don't think they really believe that God will judge people like that, even if they say they believe it.

In that case, your friends might risk going with God given this hypothetical. That' is progress, but to me as a non-believer, it isn't much. I mean, think about it, if after centuries of the nonsense, the best we can do is say, well yeah, but the brightest and most mature and liberalized believers really don't believe according to what the declare on paper.

[honorentheos]

My point, I think, is that theism in the abstract doesn't go very well with any theistic religion that has ever existed.

I generally view theism as having cultural/social functions that explain why it crops up in diverse ways across human groups otherwise culturally separated. And like artifacts of culture, the details of a theology are most coherent within that cultural context.

Your question forces the removal of cultural context and jumps straight to the endgame that is really ancillary to the function of religion for folks who identify with as an extension of their own cultural identity. So of course the response is to see it as nonsensical.

As a logic problem, the question becomes how trustworthy is the being based on the internal information provided? And in my opinion, this becomes a paradox. If they aren't trustworthy then there is no reason to assume they'd honor the choice to allow a person to just cease existing. And if they are trustworthy, why are they engaging in this scenario as presented? In my opinion, the latter suggests then they are more likely to judge according to conditions that probably don't align well with any major religions view of God because the concepts of deity we have are incoherent with the problem presented. In other words, for this being to be one of the theistic gods we've been told about we have to also question how trustworthy they are? And that's the rub.

[msnobody]

suppose you're met with a powerful being after you die who brings you good news: there is a God. The bad news is that your religion is wrong about God. If you're Mormon, for instance, you're told that Joseph Smith was a fraud. The being at this point offers you a choice. You can either proceed to stand before God and be judged, or you can opt out and have the atheist's version of death and simply cease to exist.

You will not be told a thing about the real God. If there is a hell, for instance, the possibility exists that you will find yourself burning in agony for eternity. What do you chose?

I’d like to think I’d submit myself to God, in repentance, and He could do whatever his will is for me.

If I died, then found out there was a God, and opted for death/annihilation, I’d have to physically die a second time. Not sure where spiritual death fits into the scenario you proposed. Both choices sound like rebellion toward God to me.

[Gadianton]

Like the majority of Christians in the world I believe some sort of purgatory is involved. I do not claim any knowledge of how it works and the end results are to my view not explained. I doubt the heaven hell thing as a final end. I do not have a special knowledge about that however.

Sure, and that seems commendable to me, it's just that I have no reason to believe that this view represents "theism" in any substantial way. Islam, by the way -- which has a big claim on theism (at least this appears to be a popular view today) -- also has an SOH clause. Christians are going to hell unless they didn't get a proper chance to hear about Mohammad, and then maybe they are covered. They have the same problem of a binary afterlife of absolute bliss and absolute horror, while being a little wishy washy and non-specific about who they are going to send to the horror. I see this as a problem, Physics Guy seems to think it's a problem and his educated friends may see it as a problem without wanting to admit to it, but perhaps for theists, generally, this is a feature, not a problem. And maybe that's why it's so slow to change.

At the end of the day, in my opinion, religion broadly paces competition for material resources. Potato famines are big factors in crusades. There is no incentive for a religious movement or a church to give up their exclusivity completely -- to give up the risk for not believing as they do, because then there's no serious impetus (a dangling sword of Damocles) for non-believers to join or for current membership to stay.

[Gadianton]

I’d like to think I’d submit myself to God, in repentance, and He could do whatever his will is for me.

Thanks msnobody, nice to hear from a believer.