huckelberry wrote:If it is a sin, why are you upset? Every body sins. It is not a monopoly of one belief group. If it is a sin I am unsure it is worse than Craig's sins.(or mine or my Pastors)
Some people think of the problem with a background assumption that God only forgives Christians. That idea is probably wrong.
Now if a person thinks that because they are atheists they are stationed above sin God, I suspect, will be less impressed with them than they are of themselves.
Because I reject the idea that is a "sin." What exactly did I do wrong by not believing? Is God so petty that he will hold my non-belief against me?
A question I have is this: if it's a sin not to believe, is it also a sin not to believe correctly? I would argue that it is, because if you believe incorrectly, then compared with the correct way, you don't believe, and hence are in sin.
This would imply that, statistically, almost everyone who lives now, or has ever lived, is a sinner just because they don't believe correctly.
I like Chap's post from earlier in the thread. Christ apparently never said much about professed belief having much to do with salvation. Rather, it was how a person lived and treated others. It was his followers who came along and made the whole "believe or be damned" claims. I was about to wonder why, but then it occurred to me that by asserting primacy of beliefs, a person can usurp power over others by claiming to be the trustee of the body of truth in which all others must believe.
Given most people on Earth have never heard of most deities that others believe in, the system is pretty much rigged against everyone. The idea that God put everything we need on Earth to develop and embrace a correct belief system looks obviously wrongheaded.
Mormonism ceased being a compelling topic for me when I finally came to terms with its transformation from a personality cult into a combination of a real estate company, a SuperPac, and Westboro Baptist Church. - Kishkumen
So....what we do is sacralize Pascal's Wager, and then when someone questions the truth value of our interpretation of the scriptures, the answer is, "because this is our interpretation of the scriptures." See, e.g., bcpsace.
If we were placing our belief-bets based solely on Pascal's Wager, we'd be fools not to bet on Islam. If we confined ourselves to Christianity, we'd be fools not to bet on the Roman Catholic Church.
Mormonism ceased being a compelling topic for me when I finally came to terms with its transformation from a personality cult into a combination of a real estate company, a SuperPac, and Westboro Baptist Church. - Kishkumen
Sethbag wrote:A question I have is this: if it's a sin not to believe, is it also a sin not to believe correctly? I would argue that it is, because if you believe incorrectly, then compared with the correct way, you don't believe, and hence are in sin.
This would imply that, statistically, almost everyone who lives now, or has ever lived, is a sinner just because they don't believe correctly.
I like Chap's post from earlier in the thread. Christ apparently never said much about professed belief having much to do with salvation. Rather, it was how a person lived and treated others. It was his followers who came along and made the whole "believe or be damned" claims. I was about to wonder why, but then it occurred to me that by asserting primacy of beliefs, a person can usurp power over others by claiming to be the trustee of the body of truth in which all others must believe.
Given most people on Earth have never heard of most deities that others believe in, the system is pretty much rigged against everyone. The idea that God put everything we need on Earth to develop and embrace a correct belief system looks obviously wrongheaded.
I am not sure I understand the distinction between unbelief and incorrect belief. Maybe a better way to describe it would be levels of belief ranging from completely wrong to completely right?
In my case my personal belief is that God does not exist but I am not certain. Do I fall into the unbelief category or the incorrect belief?
"Any over-ritualized religion since the dawn of time can make its priests say yes, we know, it is rotten, and hard luck, but just do as we say, keep at the ritual, stick it out, give us your money and you'll end up with the angels in heaven for evermore."
Sethbag wrote:A question I have is this: if it's a sin not to believe, is it also a sin not to believe correctly? I would argue that it is, because if you believe incorrectly, then compared with the correct way, you don't believe, and hence are in sin.
Second, wholly apart from God’s revelation in nature is the inner witness which the Holy Spirit bears to the great truths of the Gospel, including, I should say, the fact that God exists. Anyone who fails to believe in God by the end of his lifetime does so only by a stubborn resistance to the work of the Holy Spirit in drawing that person to a knowledge of God
Since the Holy Spirit testifies of the "great truths" of the gospel. It appears that anyone who believes incorrectly does so also by a "stubborn resistance to the work of the Holy Spirit". Which would make them morally culpable. So I can only assume that Muslims and eastern religions also believe in their religions because of a "stubborn resistance to the work of the Holy Spirit."
Perhaps I should have titled the thread "The sin of believing incorrectly."
Fence Sitter wrote:I am not sure I understand the distinction between unbelief and incorrect belief. Maybe a better way to describe it would be levels of belief ranging from completely wrong to completely right?
Belief in the wrong doctrine presupposes lack of belief in the correct doctrine, wouldn't you say? For instance, of Kali were in fact the real deity who actually exists, and belief in Kali were required, then belief in Jesus Christ would count as both incorrect belief, and as unbelief since Kali is not believed in.
In my case my personal belief is that God does not exist but I am not certain. Do I fall into the unbelief category or the incorrect belief?
I don't believe that God exists either. We're in the same boat, and I think that, as per the above, and in light of the point Stormy Waters just made, Craig would agree.
Mormonism ceased being a compelling topic for me when I finally came to terms with its transformation from a personality cult into a combination of a real estate company, a SuperPac, and Westboro Baptist Church. - Kishkumen
Sethbag wrote:Belief in the wrong doctrine presupposes lack of belief in the correct doctrine, wouldn't you say? For instance, of Kali were in fact the real deity who actually exists, and belief in Kali were required, then belief in Jesus Christ would count as both incorrect belief, and as unbelief since Kali is not believed in.
I don't think it is either or. If my belief in Jesus Christ includes aspects of Kali attributes then one could say I had some thing right and others wrong. Maybe Jesus Chirst is just perversion of Kali, sort of like how the, according to the LDS beliefs, the Egyptians tried to imitate the priesthood.
Sethbag wrote:I don't believe that God exists either. We're in the same boat, and I think that, as per the above, and in light of the point Stormy Waters just made, Craig would agree.
Well since I am not going to say God does not exist then there must be some aspect/degree of belief that I have right. I still think we are talking about degrees of belief. Perhaps in the end there is no difference, as we will be judged on what we got wrong and rewarded for what we got right.
"Any over-ritualized religion since the dawn of time can make its priests say yes, we know, it is rotten, and hard luck, but just do as we say, keep at the ritual, stick it out, give us your money and you'll end up with the angels in heaven for evermore."