My Escatological Vision

[OnlyNatural]

Rape is far worse than non-belief under certain conditions. The thing that is unforgivable about both is a hate for God.

Non-belief doesn’t involve hatred for God; you can’t hate something that doesn’t exist.

In Christianity anytime we commit a mortal sin we actually sin twice, we sin against God, that is we blaspheme love and meaning and all good things, and we do the particular sin like say not believe in God, or something even as heinous as molestation. All sins are forgivable excpet blaspheming God's love, which is returning God's loving-kindness with hate.

Again, the ‘sin’ of not-believing in God can’t involve hating him, if you don’t believe in him. Blasphemy is not a crime to an atheist, because there is no victim.

So if you don't believe in God becasu you are legitimately seeking truth in charity, and that is the honest conclusion that you have come to, then I believe you will go to heaven, because Christ tells us that He who seeks shall find, and if you are seeking in charity, then you will find that Christ is Truth, so I'm not worried about you.

I mean charity as a disposition of the will. God is Truth. All truth flows form His Truth, in my belief, so if it is true then it is of God.

Well in the end if you sought Truth with a charitable disposition I believe you sought Christ in a different way. If you are only pretending to seek truth or if you seek truth hatefully then I believe that you are not seeking truth at all, that is what I mean by you need a charitable disposition as a opposed to a hateful disposition. If Christ is Truth (in my view He is), and you are seeking Truth, then you are seeking Christ so you are a Christian (from my point of view).

So even a nonbeliever seeking truth is going to end up finding Christ or God?

How does one ‘pretend’ to seek the truth, or seek it in a hateful way?

See, for me, truth is reality. I am seeking the best explanations for reality and real-life phenomena that are backed by the most comprehensive and non-contradictory evidence. And seeking truth in this way only moves me further away from the god hypothesis, not closer.

And in the end when Christ reveals Himself to us in a more complete way you will believe, and if you choose not to beleive despite your knowledge that God exists, then that is blaspheming God. I hope that makes sense.

No, sorry, that doesn't make much sense. If God revealed his existence in some objectively verifiable way, then I would have no choice but to believe. The evidence would be there in front of me, and in front of others too, and I’d be a fool to ignore it. That's like saying 'I have evidence and knowledge that the chair I'm sitting in exists, but I choose not to believe it.' That would be self-delusion, and I'm not a big fan of that.

So unless God/Christ unambiguously reveals himself one day (which I think is highly unlikely), I cannot go through life just having blind faith in his existence.

So are you saying that someone experience God in the past and that is why people believe it today .

If the child is never exposed to God he may come up with God on his own, like our ancestors must have done, unless God revealed Himself to them, which I believe He reveals Himself to us to this day.

I’m not talking about someone ‘experiencing’ God. I mean hearing about God, from parents, society, etc.

I do find the origins of religion quite interesting. Some human ancestors had to have come up with the idea of a god at some point, most likely to explain natural phenomena that they didn’t understand. The concept of ‘god’ was then passed down through the generations, and entire mythologies evolved around it.