This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

Going to Heaven if you never heard the Gospel

#61DarkContractor(Topic Creator)Posted 3/25/2013 6:55:05 PM

So there are exceptions to accepting Jesus. It's not unreasonable that those ignorant of Jesus may have some alternative to finding God.


Yes, exceptions in the Old Covenant. That's exactly what we should expect with the theology I've built; people before the Resurrection's ignorance being excused, but now, no one is without excuse. Because the Resurrection has provided assurance to all and so God no longer overlooks ignorance like he used to. It IS unreasonable that those of ignorant of Jesus currently have an alternative, because it is a falsified position.

God's qualities are not synonymous with God himself. Given the subsequent verses and chapters' emphasis upon following the law and not being a bad person, I'm still leaning toward the morality interpretation, that the invisible quality in question is nothing more than goodness which comes from God.


Divine nature would encompass who he is, it doesn't say bits and pieces of it or any specifric part (besides him being eternal). Morality would be one part of it, which is addressed, and knowledge of the Gospel as I illustrated in the argument is outlined in Romans 10. The divine nature is all encompassing.

Conscience is just a moral compass which God has given to everyone. No one has an excuse for failing to recognizing goodness/godliness because we instinctively know what good is.


You're missing what I said. So we know every bit of it? Homosexuality, the starving children all over the world, vicious diseases, I feel no 'good' intuition about that. It's the subjectivity of our morals and what we feel is good that leads to so much moral debate, as you previously contended. Are you now abandoning that position to say that we all have an instinctive good? I have no problem saying that the Bible says we have full knowledge of the law, but I'm just asking, do we actually?


"Blessed are those who have not seen but have believed anyway." -- Jesus
It's great if God performs an exciting revelation for you, but as Jesus said, faith is not contingent upon sensory evidence. The decision to find God must often be made without empirical verification.


Woop de do da day. Faith is pretending to believe something. If I decided to have faith I won't become convinced of Jesus. I would be an atheist who decided to pray, read the Bible, etc. etc. etc. It's mental gymnastics at its finest. I'm not going to have faith in Jesus anymore than I will in Santa, and the threat of Hell is about as significant to me as the threat of getting on Santa's Naughty list. regardless, this does not disrupt the theology I have built.

It's kinda hard for me to answer that. Both religion and science seem to suggest that people are hard-wired for religiosity or superstition and that secularism is something which usually must be learned.


Citation on the science?
---
An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind. PSN: MrPillow92 Steam: MrPillowtheGreat
#62DarkContractor(Topic Creator)Posted 3/25/2013 6:55:13 PM
If you absolutely have never felt God (though we both know that's false), then you're still culpable, even if your interpretation of Romans is correct.


I just wanted to comment on the bit in brackets. First, don't pretend to testify to my experience. Second, no it's true. As I said, it's one of the reasons I de-converted. I was pretty much making up bs about what the Holy Spirit was, at one point. Ask Proudclad about the rather hilarious moment I once had trying to describe what the Holy Spirit felt like to him over the phone. I literally said "it's like a process you're aware but not like really aware of but you just know its there". When I converted to the mythos, I was at a pretty low point of time my life. There was a born again at work who always seemed happy about **** and everything and it brought me to try becoming a Christian. I was actually pretty much "Am I really going through with this? C'mon this is ridiculous" the first few days then I had a couple experiences that seemed more than a coincidence occur and I took it as a confirmation bias. Post deconversion I have not felt the slightest inkling of seeking 'spiritual fulfillment'. I pretty much still come here and research theology related stuff for the knowledge and because I enjoy debating. Anyways, just wanted to get that out of the way.

You've mentioned that you reject the concept of faith, despite the Bible's saying that faith is required to find God. Your justification is that empiricism is preferable to fideism. The problem is that the Bible says the exact opposite. "We walk by faith and not by sight."


I don't really care what the Bible says. I need to be convinced of the Bible before I rely on it as an axiom to discover whatever the truth is, which if I did that my faith issue would seem to be remedied. Quite the Catch 22. Again, my goal is the truth, it is not hope, it is not an attempt to stay out of some religion's Hell, it is purely the truth. Biblically, faith would keep me from Hell, but it would not verify if Hell is or isn't, and that is what I care about.
---
An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind. PSN: MrPillow92 Steam: MrPillowtheGreat
#63countzanderPosted 3/26/2013 1:08:44 PM
-.-

I was just about to respond to all those blocks when I read, "I don't really care what the Bible says." You've relied on the Bible to defend your position, but now you don't care? What happened? Did you pick the parts which supported your position while ignoring the ones that don't?

You're making it seem as if you're more interested in defending atheism, not necessarily searching for the truth. The inconvenient truth is that the Bible gives specific instructions for finding God. Now, the Bible is either correct or wrong, but if you cross your arms, ignore the instructions, and try to find God however you want, you should not be surprised if you don't find him. If you don't care what the Bible has to say on the matter, that faith is necessary for finding God, then your atheism is guaranteed, regardless of whether God exists...
---
http://i.imgur.com/k1nGh.jpg
#64countzanderPosted 3/26/2013 1:26:53 PM
Yes, exceptions in the Old Covenant. That's exactly what we should expect with the theology I've built; people before the Resurrection's ignorance being excused, but now, no one is without excuse. Because the Resurrection has provided assurance to all and so God no longer overlooks ignorance like he used to. It IS unreasonable that those of ignorant of Jesus currently have an alternative, because it is a falsified position.


The Resurrection hasn't given assurance to all. One of the assumptions of telling people about the Gospel is that they're ignorant of it.

Divine nature would encompass who he is, it doesn't say bits and pieces of it or any specifric part (besides him being eternal). Morality would be one part of it, which is addressed, and knowledge of the Gospel as I illustrated in the argument is outlined in Romans 10. The divine nature is all encompassing.


Romans 10 is referring to the Israelites. They, of course, knew of God's nature due to their religion. But how is the chapter applicable to everyone else?

You're missing what I said. So we know every bit of it? Homosexuality, the starving children all over the world, vicious diseases, I feel no 'good' intuition about that. It's the subjectivity of our morals and what we feel is good that leads to so much moral debate, as you previously contended. Are you now abandoning that position to say that we all have an instinctive good? I have no problem saying that the Bible says we have full knowledge of the law, but I'm just asking, do we actually?


No, not every bit, just enough to not have an excuse for being wicked. Incest, murder, theft, rape--these are some things we instinctively know are wrong. Stealing to feed your family, killing in self-defense, having sex with your sister to have the human race--obviously, those things are ambiguous, but it's interesting that they aren't explicitly condemned. We don't have complete knowledge, but we know enough to not degrade into a barbaric society.

Citation on the science?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_origin_of_religions#Evolutionary_psychology_of_religion
---
http://i.imgur.com/k1nGh.jpg
#65OrangeWizardPosted 3/26/2013 1:30:17 PM(edited)
From: countzander | #063
You're making it seem as if you're more interested in defending atheism, not necessarily searching for the truth.


That's why he blocked me. He couldn't handle the truth.

Or because I was aggravating.
---
Trolling and making valid arguments are not mutually exclusive things.
#66countzanderPosted 3/26/2013 4:39:35 PM
It's not what you say; it's how you say it. Everything sounds mean on the Internet.
---
http://i.imgur.com/k1nGh.jpg
#67DarkContractor(Topic Creator)Posted 3/28/2013 2:27:51 PM
not gonna have the chance to respond until around saturday and write a long post and stuff but i didnt want it to lock in the mean time
---
An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind. PSN: MrPillow92 Steam: MrPillowtheGreat
#68Julian_CaesarPosted 3/28/2013 8:12:41 PM
From: DarkContractor | #062
I don't really care what the Bible says. I need to be convinced of the Bible before I rely on it as an axiom to discover whatever the truth is, which if I did that my faith issue would seem to be remedied. Quite the Catch 22. Again, my goal is the truth, it is not hope, it is not an attempt to stay out of some religion's Hell, it is purely the truth. Biblically, faith would keep me from Hell, but it would not verify if Hell is or isn't, and that is what I care about.


How do you suggest that you might be "convinced" of the Bible? Because that's either a very difficult thing or a very easy thing, depending on what you mean by "convinced." Or more specifically, what kind of idea/proof/reason/story you would consider to be "convincing."
---
Every day the rest of your life is changed forever.
#69DarkContractor(Topic Creator)Posted 3/29/2013 3:02:06 PM
From: countzander | #063
-.-

I was just about to respond to all those blocks when I read, "I don't really care what the Bible says." You've relied on the Bible to defend your position, but now you don't care? What happened? Did you pick the parts which supported your position while ignoring the ones that don't?

You're making it seem as if you're more interested in defending atheism, not necessarily searching for the truth. The inconvenient truth is that the Bible gives specific instructions for finding God. Now, the Bible is either correct or wrong, but if you cross your arms, ignore the instructions, and try to find God however you want, you should not be surprised if you don't find him. If you don't care what the Bible has to say on the matter, that faith is necessary for finding God, then your atheism is guaranteed, regardless of whether God exists...



I like how you're stuck in this dichotomy of "Christian God vs No God at all" as far as 'truth' is concerned. If the Bible is correct, then I guess God should've planned it out better because I will not allow some book to distract me from 40 years of my life just incase I see a miracle. People can play mental gymnastics all day, but until the Bible is proven, I don't really give a ****. Why not the Flying Spaghetti Monster? He requires faith in order for you to touch him with his noodly appendage.


The Resurrection hasn't given assurance to all. One of the assumptions of telling people about the Gospel is that they're ignorant of it.
If you want to ignore Scripture on this subject, be my guest.

Romans 10 is referring to the Israelites. They, of course, knew of God's nature due to their religion. But how is the chapter applicable to everyone else?


Paul said they knew because "Their sound [sound being the message of the Gospel] has gone out to all the earth, and their words to the ends of the world." You're just rationalizing at this point.

No, not every bit, just enough to not have an excuse for being wicked. Incest, murder, theft, rape--these are some things we instinctively know are wrong. Stealing to feed your family, killing in self-defense, having sex with your sister to have the human race--obviously, those things are ambiguous, but it's interesting that they aren't explicitly condemned. We don't have complete knowledge, but we know enough to not degrade into a barbaric society.


Explain how you're getting the interpretation that we only have some of the laws written in our hearts? What about Muslims who would say they feel in their hearts to eliminate people who oppose their own faith? (Okay that was a bit from a left field, but seriously though, my 2 points are 1) The idea of only some of the laws being written on our hearts is not implied at all in that verse, the whole point was that ignorance was not an excuse and 2) The ones you have purported to be the universally written laws are not reflected universally throughout culture



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_origin_of_religions#Evolutionary_psychology_of_religion


Fair enough, conceded. Though I still have no 'sense' of God, regardless. From: Julian_Caesar | #068


Namely empiricism, doesn't matter to me if I would be the only one who has the proof or if it's demonstrable to others. It's easier for me to list examples, like clearly if I knew the resurrection was a fact I would not sit around waiting for science to explain that one.
---
An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind. PSN: MrPillow92 Steam: MrPillowtheGreat
#70countzanderPosted 3/31/2013 7:57:51 PM
I like how you're stuck in this dichotomy of "Christian God vs No God at all" as far as 'truth' is concerned. If the Bible is correct, then I guess God should've planned it out better because I will not allow some book to distract me from 40 years of my life just incase I see a miracle. People can play mental gymnastics all day, but until the Bible is proven, I don't really give a ****. Why not the Flying Spaghetti Monster? He requires faith in order for you to touch him with his noodly appendage.


Okay, but it seems as if you're making an appeal to frustration or something. As I've already said, the Bible gives instructions for finding God. Not liking those instructions, subsequently ignoring them, and then becoming an atheist is...not surprising. Your atheism has already been determined by your mindset. As the guy in #68 has alluded to, without faith, there's no way you can leave atheism, regardless of whether Christianity is true.

As for other religions, you should take them up on their challenges. You don't have to limit yourself to Christianity and atheism. Personally, I think the Christian position is more viable and coherent than the other ones.

If you want to ignore Scripture on this subject, be my guest.


"I don't really care what the Bible says [either]." ~ DarkContractor

But seriously. I'm not ignoring the Bible. I just think you may have overlooked some of the relevant verses.

Paul said they knew because "Their sound [sound being the message of the Gospel] has gone out to all the earth, and their words to the ends of the world." You're just rationalizing at this point.


Yes, he most certainly does say that. But the passage uses that quote from the OT to explain why the Israelites rejected the Gospel, not the Gentiles. When the passage says that the message went throughout the world, I think it's referring to the Jewish world, not the entire earth. Reason? Just before that verse, Paul mentions that in order for someone to accept the Gospel, the person has to hear it from an actual person. In that case, the Israelites were culpable for their nonbelief since...they had been hearing of God for hundreds of years. But even after John the Baptizer and Jesus began their itenerant ministries and even after Jesus performed public miracles, the Israelites refused to believe. Paul is condemning the Israelites, as the passage explicitly mentions, not the Gentiles.

Explain how you're getting the interpretation that we only have some of the laws written in our hearts? What about Muslims who would say they feel in their hearts to eliminate people who oppose their own faith? (Okay that was a bit from a left field, but seriously though, my 2 points are 1) The idea of only some of the laws being written on our hearts is not implied at all in that verse, the whole point was that ignorance was not an excuse and 2) The ones you have purported to be the universally written laws are not reflected universally throughout culture.


I'm not saying that we have only some of the laws. I'm saying we have the general law but not necessarily the specifics. We all instinctively know that unrestrained killing, forced sex, and theft are wrong. That innate repulsion we have toward certain actions is the divine law written upon our hearts. Now of course, there have been individuals who feel little to no shame for those actions. Aztec human sacrifice, rape during the Great Patriotic War, pillaging during conflicts, terrorism, etc--despite those thing having been done on mass scales, I think the innate, hesitant reaction is "You know, we probably shouldn't do this..." But that little voice can be crowded out for whatever reason, usually some form of irrationality or peer pressure or God's abandonment.
---
http://i.imgur.com/k1nGh.jpg