Theistic Inclinations

[Edwardo Piet]

A common topic on AF is how much evidence is required to believe in God. I think it is pretty clear that for the overwhelming majority of AF members, no amount of evidence would be sufficient. As far as I’m concerned, God is not as hidden as they suggest. Everyone knows that some things are right and some things are wrong. It takes a special effort to believe in moral relativism. Everyone senses the transcendent in things of great beauty. It takes a special effort to attribute those feelings to just physiological responses. Anyone can see that things are not right in the world and that most often we have only ourselves to blame. It takes a special effort to consider yourself blameless in all this mess. The list goes on. That is what Paul is talking about; they suppress the truth in unrighteousness.

Everyone does not know that. Knowledge presupposes belief and certainly not everyone believes in objective morality, even if they're mistaken for not believing in it (in at least some sense).

If you think that objective right and wrong is an indication of God you're making a total non-sequitur.

On the contrary: When there's objective right and wrong you don't need God to tell you it's right or wrong... it's right or wrong regardless of what God says and regardless of what anyone says.

Everyone senses the transcendent? Really? Once again... a non-sequitur. We feel that things are meaningful... that doesn't entail that they are transcendent.

And you're making an argument from personal incredulity if you think it just seems ridiculous to you personally for meaningful feelings to be a matter of brain chemistry.

---

In the first case there is contrition for one's shortcomings. In the second case, there is not.

So God will accept murderers if they are contrite, even if they don't accept Jesus as their savior?

No. He's saying that being truly sorry for murder is acknowledging your shortcomings and is worthy of forgiveness... but never believing in Jesus is not acknowledging your shortcomings (i.e. your 'sin' of involuntarily failing to be convinced).... so the former is forgiven but the latter isn't.

If they murder and feel genuine remorse but still don't accept Jesus as their savior they still have a 'shortcoming'.

[Neo-Scholastic]

In the first case there is contrition for one's shortcomings. In the second case, there is not.

So God will accept murderers if they are contrite, even if they don't accept Jesus as their savior?

I say it is possible, in theory, but we cannot presume. At the very least someone would have to recognize some kind of transcendent moral structure that they have violated. That could put them, in theory, on them on a trajectory that could maybe lead to full recognition and acceptance of Jesus Christ. I do not think it would be wise to teach that as doctrine. The bible does not give a clear teaching on that. If that theory is wrong then promoting the idea of a 'second chance' would lead people astray.

Guys, I get that the bible doesn't go into detail about how things will play out at the moment of death. But if Hell is the constant rejection of God, and Heaven is the constant acceptance of Him, doesn't that indicate that we still have the free will to choose once we die?

I cannot stress enough that the biblical text is not definitive on the exact nature of Man's ultimate fate. It is very general, couched in parable and/or using language laden with symbol and allusion. What is clear is only one name has been given, the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, and that no one comes to the Father except by Him. It is also abundantly clear that all have sinned and no one by his or her own merits can stand blameless before God's righteous judgement.

I hear your compassion and hope for the unbelievers, I really do. After all, given an infinite amount of time and unlimited opportunity surely everyone will come around. That seems to be your suggestion. Personally, I think the case for universalism is very weak although I know David Bentley Hart now advocates univeralism and I think he is the type of deep thinker that should be taken seriously. While there are few suggestive passages, other than those, it seems like that doctrine is mostly theological speculation. Do we have free will after we die? I believe so but that does not mean we have unlimited options. I cannot go back it time to change decisions I now regret having made. Nor can I choose to take medicine I dumped in the trash.

And for people who don't believe in God/Jesus simply because they were born into an indigenous tribe in the wilderness or something and have never heard of Him. When they die and see God for the first time, don't they then get the chance to either accept or reject? If those people get that chance, why wouldn't everyone else?

Again there is no clear biblical teaching on the matter. All we can do is extrapolate and puzzle over suggestive verses. And many have, I think wrongly, presented various notions as definitive doctrines. The most common solution to the "problem of the heathens" is that people are only accountable in proportion to the amount of Light they have been given. For some that may be simply the general revelation. Perhaps that is sufficient. Dante placed Socrates in the Limbo, not a state of damnation but not the fullness of Blessing either. That could be. Or having already accepted the idea of The Good, perhaps that puts them in the right direction and they are allowed to follow that to its ultimate conclusion. Maybe. At the same time Christians have also been given the Great Commission buy Jesus, which seems vitally important. If it is a mere announcement and people can be saved without knowledge of the gospel then why does Christ command us to preach it? Either it is irrelevant to salvation, pushes deliverance along faster, or is absolutely necessary for redemption. That seems to exhaust all the options.

One last note on this post: What exactly did Jesus mean when He told us to judge not? It's pretty broad. I think He meant the ultimate judgement... the judgement on the state of someone's soul, considering we also believe only God can make it. Knowing that we are not to make these judgement, wouldn't we assume the best of people's souls?

You need to read the whole verse - “Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you." it is a warning against hypocrisy, not a blanket command.

[Catholic_Lady]

Chad,

I understand what you're saying. The bible doesn't go into detail about judgement and the afterlife, so anything we say outside of the very general things written in it, is our own personal opinion. I agree with you on that. You are careful not to say things that are too optimistic because it might lead some people to have the mentality of "Well, in case all this is true I can go to heaven anyway, so I'll just take full advantage of living as an unbeliever and do things my own way without worrying about it." You'd rather err on the side of caution with what you say, for that reason.

I can see the value in that. Though personally I still think it's also important for people of other faiths, or no faiths, to not see us as the snobby kids in school who are so quick to dismiss those who think differently. So even though I understand your hesitation, for that reason I think it's important to share my honest, optimistic opinion regarding judgement in the afterlife.

Or maybe the best thing is having a good balance of both.

As for the stuff about judging, I see the message of hypocrisy in what you posted. Nonetheless, aren't we taught to judge actions but not to judge people? As in not to judge the state of people's souls? I know this is a Catholic teaching, because the Catechism talks about this. But I thought it was a pretty well accepted Christian teaching as well.

[Neo-Scholastic]

That's right, no one knows what is in another's heart.

[Foxaèr]

That's right, no one knows what is in another's heart.

Of course we do. A simple biology course will inform anyone of precisely what a heart is made.

[GrandizerII]

The exchanges happening here between the Christian members. My god, isn't it more parsimonious to actually view Christian theism as entirely man-made, instead of trying to make sense out of what the Bible says on the unwarranted assumption it's divinely inspired? The Bible is a book of contradictions, and a source of confusion for many, including Christians.

[Aroura]

You both speak as if belief is a choice, and not a consequence.

I challenge either of you to stop believing just for 5 minutes.  Just let it go, then get it back.  Surely if it is a choice, then you can chose it as well.  
You speak as if we chose it so we can escape being moral, as if any theist his more moral.  What does "take full advantage of living as an unbeliever" even mean?  Do you think we commit more sins, perhaps cheat and lie more than you?  Bullshit.  Do you think life is somehow easier for us?  Again, bullshit.  It's harder.  

I believed for longer than I have not believed.  You have no idea how much most atheists who once were believers suffered and tried with all their hearts to go on believing, but simply could not.  The stories are here, you read them, and dismiss them.
There is no choice, in this at least (though I think not in anything).  Theists must maintain the illusion of choice so you can keep throwing rocks inside that glass house of yours.

[Neo-Scholastic]

You both speak as if belief is a choice, and not a consequence.

An analogy might help. You choose to enter a movie theater; seeing the movie is the consequence of that choice. Similarly, contrition and repentance open you up to receive the Holy Spirit by means of the gospel.

[Catholic_Lady]

The exchanges happening here between the Christian members. My god, isn't it more parsimonious to actually view Christian theism as entirely man-made, instead of trying to make sense out of what the Bible says on the unwarranted assumption it's divinely inspired? The Bible is a book of contradictions, and a source of confusion for many, including Christians.

The bible doesn't go into detail about what the afterlife will be like and how people will be judged in all the different scenarios possible. On those things, we may speculate, disagree, and have our personal opinions. I don't see why that's such a big deal. The important thing, and what actually matters, is that we all agree we can only be 100% responsible for our own souls, and we trust in God's judgement for the rest.

[Harry Nevis]

Yes, that was what I meant. FWIW annihilationism is still on the table. Unbelievers could just die permanently after the White Throne judgement. I'm sure they'll whine about it not being fair then too even though it will be exactly what they already expected.

What we expected?  You must be one of those who claim we really do believe but reject, or we're just mad at god.

---

Again, this is my personal opinion, but the notion that unbelievers just die and go right to Hell (as though Hell is a physical place, which it isn't) sounds much too simplistic for such a great God.

So you have to find some way to rationalize this because it's just not possible that you're wrong from the start, huh?